Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-21 15:13:04
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Stewart, Robert
> > Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Joachim on this point. Since they both deal
> with builtin C++ operators (something in common), *it would be
> nice* if the part of the name referring to the operator (the
> common part) were the same (or a slightly varied). The
> semantic difference between the functor and the trait should,
> IMO, primarily be conveyed by the prefix or suffix or the
> particular variation on the "primary" operator name.
OK. Is "multiplication" a slight enough variation of "multiplies?" If not, what variation would you consider slight enough?
Did you try the thought experiment I suggested in my last post?
> Also, while we're on the topic of what *I* prefer: I still
> prefer "has_xxx". To me, it has an implicit association (to
> me, anyway) to the names of trait predicates; it has simplicity
> and brevity; and it has existing use in Boost.TypeTraits.
What about all of the "is_" prefixed traits and other names in Boost.TypeTraits with prefixes like "add_" and "remove_," and those without a prefix? There's clear precedent for different prefixes for different purposes within the library. Remember that "has_" implies ownership or inherent characteristic which doesn't apply to a namespace scope operator.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer using std::disclaimer;
Dev Tools & Components
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.