Re: [boost] Enums: naming question?

Subject: Re: [boost] Enums: naming question?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-21 11:26:04

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Vicente Botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>wrote:

>
> Max Sobolev wrote:
> >
> > On 19.03.2011 23:12, Vicente Botet wrote:
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.-2 wrote:
> > &gt;&gt;
> > &gt;&gt; Then all I can suggest as a better name is *maybe* scoped_type
> or
> > &gt;&gt; scoped_enum_type.  But scoping_type might be fine.
> > &gt;&gt;
> > &gt;
> > &gt; Hmm, scoping_type and scoped_enum_type seems reasonable, but I
> prefer
> > yet
> > &gt; the use of native_type. What do others think?
> >
> > I like scoped_enum_type name :)
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, I think I misunderstood Jeffrey.
>
> were you proposing to replace scoping_type by scoped_enum_type or or
> scoped_type and let native_type as now?
>

 The quote referred to replacing scoping[_type] with either scoped[_type] or
scoped_enum[_type] (I like the latter better).  I had already commented that
I think native_enum[_type] would be clearer than native[_type] and
underlying_integer[_type] clearer than underlying[_type] (although this
latter case is already called underlying_type in the standard, right?).

Robert Stewart brought up a good point on the redundancy of the "_type"
suffix, so although the above alternatives to your current metafunction
names are longer, that will be mostly mitigated by removing the redundant
"_type" suffix.  However, we do have free function analogues of these
metafunctions, correct?  Maybe you can put the metafunctions in a result_of
namespace, as Boost.Fusion does?

[I'm hoping the angle brackets get preserved...]

namespace result_of{
template< class E > struct native_enum;
template< class E > struct underlying_integer;
template< class E > struct scoped_enum;
} // namespace result_of
template< class E >
typename result_of::native_enum<E>::type
native_enum(const E e);
// etc.

- Jeff