Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension ending tomorrow

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension ending tomorrow
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-18 12:28:18

> Dear All,
>
> The fast track review of Frédéric Bron's extensions to the Type Traits
> Library is ending tomorrow.
> If you plan to submit a review, please do so as soon as possible.

>I am clearly *in favor* of this extension (BTW what would be the
>precise name for it?). I had fun evaluating it and trying a few
>experiments. Alas as a result of those and the discussion on the list,
>I reached a point where I feel I need some more time and I'd like to
>see some more discussion on a point that I'd like to highlight:
>
>Naming
>
>(1) has_operator_xxx seems to be imprecise and misleading.

How so?  Personally I like the idea of a common prefix for all of these.

>(2) has_operator_xxx introduces a redundant prefix 'has_operator' that
>IMO is unnecessary

Maybe, but it makes it explicit what you're testing, and puts all the 
operator traits together in the alphabetical index - a small point I know, 
but it is useful none the less!

>(3) If there are close relationships between Concepts and operator
>traits their names should express this relation as well.
>
>My current proposal is:
>
>plus_assign_callable or even better
>plus_assingable   instead of  has_operator_plus_assign

I'd prefer is_plus_assignable if we go that route.

John.