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: 2011-03-21 07:59:09

>(2.3) I'd prefer has_xxx over has_operator_xxx because I think that
>operator names xxx can stand for themselves without an "operator_
>reminder" prefix. The has_operator_ prefix is lengthy and introduces
>unnecessary redundancy.

Hmm, I'm not sure it is completely redundant - I prefer 
long_descriptive_names to short_cute_ones because it makes the code easier 
to understand - even though it result in a touch more typing.

>(6) I'd be nicer if we had quickbook docs, but as Frédéric has pointed
>out he integrates into the the prevailing style of the "mother
>library". Still it may be nice to take the opporunity to update the
>whole type traits docs to quickbook style. But this is a lot of work
>of course and goes beyond the scope of the extension.

FYI All the type_traits docs are in quickbook format already, it may not be 
obvious though if the sandbox versions aren't picking up the usual 
stylesheets.

John.