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: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 01:53:23

> Message du 29/03/11 02:29
> De : "Frédéric Bron" 
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
> 
> > Is there any problem related to using a short prefix like "is_"?
> 
> I have nothing against "is_" but what follows must be descriptive
> enough, "is_xxxx" is too short.
> I do not like to add "able" to all operators because it looks strange
> for some of them (needs to add "_comparable" for <, >,...; "orable",
> "andable", "xorable" are very strange...).
> "has_xxxx" looks too short to me and the review reveiled that
> "has_operator_xxxx" or "has_xxxx" alone was confusing because it is
> the wrong meaning: we are not testing if the types have the operator
> (as member) but if that operator can be applied.
> 
> However, I like the new proposal from Stewart (thank you)
> "can_call_xxxx" which could also be "can_apply_". I like it because:
> - it means what it checks,
> - they will all be sorted alphabetically; what happens when I want to
> use such a trait? I remember easily the prefix and go straight ahead
> to the alphabetical list to get the end. Not so easy with a suffix.
> 
> Now the question is do we need "_operator" in the name which seems
> logical to me: "can_call/apply_operator_xxxx". But it is quite long.
> Some propose just "_op" -> "can_call/apply_op_xxxx".
> This is not something that will be written very often when used so
> that maybe a longer name is better because then when you read it again
> months later, you understand it immediately.

Hi,

I like can_can_operator_XXXX. Have you considered can_call_XXXX_operator? 

BTW, I don't see in the review result any constraint on the names for XXXX. I'm designing Boost.Opaque that provides some meta-function to forward the operators from the opaque class to the underlying type such as using_XXXX, hiding_XXXX and I would want to use the same as in your library. Please, could you give the list of XXXX that will be provided by the library?

Thanks,
Vicente