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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 08:11:05

At Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:07:17 -0700,
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> 
> 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_.
> >
> 
> I think this is worse than has_operator_xxx or is_xxxable.

The C++ standard proposal for concepts used HasXXX
(e.g. HasRightShift) for such syntactic tests (see
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2008/n2502.pdf).  I
think the word "_operator_" doesn't add much here.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com