Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library ofhas_operator_xxx
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-17 17:23:50
On 11/17/2010 3:48 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Frédéric Bron wrote:
>>> Those names are not consistent with
>>> boost::has_new_operator. That is, you need to rename them
>>> like the following for consistency:
>>> The result won't be perfect. For example,
>>> "has_operator_divides" should be renamed "has_division_operator."
>>> Renaming "has_new_operator" seems more appropriate,
>>> however. "has_operator_new" puts "operator" and "new" in the
>>> right order as the query is for operator new, not the new operator.
>>> The same discussion applies to the other traits.
>> The question of naming has already been discussed here :
> There wasn't much discussion. You asked about "has_operator_less_than" versus "has_less_than_operator" and I suggested that the former is more consistent with C++ syntax, but that deviates from boost::has_new_operator.
>> At that time, we preferred has_operator_xxx to has_xxx_operator.
> I still think its better.
I agree also. Having all the operator traits begin with 'has_operator_'
makes their use easier to remember.
Alternatively I could even see putting all the operator traits in their
own namespace of 'boost::operators', dropping the 'operator_' in their
name, and allowing the end-user to surface them to just the 'boost'
namespace via a using declaration as they like. But then again, I am a
very strong supporter of namespaces and allowing the end-user to expose
what they want from namespaces via 'using'.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk