Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library ofhas_operator_xxx

Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library ofhas_operator_xxx
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-20 05:01:03

My apologies for coming late to this discussion, I appear to have reached my 
"bandwidth limit" for the max number of simultaneous discussions - not that 
that's all that hard :-(

A couple of observations:

* I'll go with the consensus on naming, and if that means changing the names 
of existing traits, then so be it - as long as the names that are part of 
the std draft remain unchanged.
* Personally I prefer either has_XXX_operator or has_operator_XXX to the 
namespace approach.  The latter has the advantage of grouping all the 
operator test names together in the alphabetical index, the former reads 
easier and more descriptively to me (we can always add a new section to the 
"type types by category" section of docs).  But <shrug> I guess.
* I'm not that keen on the operators:: subnamespace, to me that namespace is 
reserved for the operators library 
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/utility/operators.htm it would 
have to be boost::type_traits::operators I guess which is rather less cute 
:-(
* If boost::is_convertible doesn't work as required for this library, then 
we should fix it, not reinvent it.  We already have a lot of compiler 
workarounds and acumulated knowledge in that version, it would be a shame to 
loose that by reinventing the wheel.

Other than that, it would be really good to finally see comprehensive 
operator testing in type_traits.

Regards, John.