Re: [boost] "Strict" type traits

From: Dave (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-27 11:54:52

Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> 
> >     has_trivial_constructor
 . . .
> >     has_no_trivial_constructor
> >
> Off the top of my head I would vote for negative traits and double checking.
> At least, that's what I've been doing and it worked well so far.

Had negative traits been your natural way of thinking,
you would have said, "I vote against positive traits" :-)

Personally, I prefer predicates to be phrased in the
positive sense whenever possible. For example, I
prefer the positive assertion:

     has_trivial_constructor

My brain has to make one additional logic inversion for:

     has_no_trivial_constructor

I.e., "it is true that the existence of a trivial
constructor is false." But what really hurts is:

     has_no_nontrivial_constructor

     -- Dave Miller :-)