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: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-28 11:48:32

Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>
> I chose "has_" for the same reason: Consistency within boost,
> because the type traits library uses has_ in similar instances.
> The argument, that this is an imprecise naming because for free
> standing operators ownership can not be determined is
> unimportant because we may conceive the complete type signature
> as the type that "owns" the operator:
>
> A x B -> B  has_plus

Thinking of A and B as a universe that may or may not include a particular operator, whether through a member function or not, is a reasonable way to interpret things.  On that basis, I now find "has_" acceptable.

That's one hurdle behind us (assuming Frédéric is likewise convinced)!

_____
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.