Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 03:42:29

2011/3/27 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron_at_[hidden]>:
>>  - The main recurring suggestions found was the choice of name for the
>> operator traits with respect to the standard naming, naming in proto and
>> other boost libraries.
>>  * Frederic and a few other seems to favor the proto naming scheme (more or
>> less the negate issue and the pre/post operator)
>>  * the question of a common prefix is still open
>
> What about is_callable_plus, is_callable_plus_assign, ...
> i.e. is_callable_xxxx where xxxx the same as in Boost.Proto?
>
> I know that is_xxxx_callable reads better but I like to have a common
> prefix longer than is_.

Is there any problem related to using a short prefix like "is_"?