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: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 08:12:36

At Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:42:29 +0200,
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 
> 2011/3/27 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron_at_[hidden]>:
> >> Â - 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.
> >> Â * Frederic and a few other seems to favor the proto naming scheme (more or
> >> less the negate issue and the pre/post operator)
> >> Â * 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_"?

The problem is that it tends to connote conformance to semantic
requirements as well as syntactic ones.  That's why we had
EqualityComparable and HasEqual in the standard proposal for concepts.

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