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: Daniel Herring (dherring_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 11:43:40

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>> 2011/3/28 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>:
>
>> As I stated in my review already I can live with a simple
>>
>> has_xxxx
>> where xxxx
>>
>> are most unifying names as proposed in
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators
>
> I know that, but there is wiggle room yet in what goes in your MUP column and I was proposing "can_call_" as a shorter version of Frédéric's "is_callable_" idea that reads better and is shorter.  Since he raised the question, he apparently hasn't accepted your "has_" prefix suggestion yet and is still fishing for ideas.

I kind of like something like has_op_X or check_op_X as a naming scheme. 
Clear, short, and distinctive.  While names like can_call_X or 
is_X_callable work, they don't emphasize that X is an operator nor do they 
seem distinctive for text searches.

Also, the naming table on the wiki may be missing a few entries.  Compare 
table 5.1.3 in the following link.  (I am not recommending its 
abbreviations, just its coverage.) 
http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangling

Later,
Daniel