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: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-20 13:22:47

viboes wrote:

...
> 
> I prefer has_division_operator than has_operator_division, and yet more than
> has_operator_divide.
> 
> division_operator ::= operator/()
...

>   has_division<T>::type 
...

>   has_division_operator<T>::type 

I assume that for consistency that these all imply

multiplication_operator

has_multiplication<T>::type

has_multiplication_operator<T>::type
has_addition_operator<T>::type
has_subtraction_operator<T>::type
...

Is that correct?

Also given the growth of EDSL's and operator overloading in general are 
these names too domain specific? For example boost::filesystem overloads 
operator/ for concatenating a path: p / "file.txt".

Has thought been given to more agnostic names such as:

has_operator_star
has_operator_slash
has_operator_plus
has_operator_minus
...

Jeff