[boost] Re: Reversed operator helpers?

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-01 09:59:07

David Abrahams wrote:
> Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>>When looking at the current:
>>
>>class X : boost::addable< X >
>>{
>>    X& operator+=( const X& );
>>};
>>
>>I wonder if addable is a good name. I thought that the classes are
>>named by the operator that is provided by the user and that they add
>>the operators that are based on it. Like here:
>>
>>class Y : boost::less_than_comparable< Y >
>>{
>>    friend bool operator<( const Y&, const Y& );
>>};
>>
>>That given, the new class should be called 'addable', the current
>>class should probably be called 'add_assignable' or something like
>>that. But that would break the interface :(( Thoughts, anyone?
> 
> If anything, I think it's less_than_comparable which should change.

I was just pointing out an inconsistency and the problem to find a name 
for the newly proposed helpers. I think that the current names are 
really intuitive (although not consistent) and that we should keep them 
- if not for anything else than at least for compatibility. Still we 
need to find (hopefully intuitive) names for the new helpers that Daryle 
proposed. Let's make a list for possible helper class names providing 
operator+= for classes that have operator+:

add_assignable (opposite semantics of above's quote)
reversed_addable (IMHO nasty, but an option anyway)
addable_assign
assign_addable
[your cool idea here :)]

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de