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: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-29 00:21:03

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Joseph Wu <josephclwu_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 07:57 PM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
>>
>> To save you some time, I have inserted my proposal as column D into the
>> Wiki at
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Joachim
>
> +1 for column D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joseph

I think (in order of strength of my opinion)
- naming is very important
- plus-equal (et al) is better than any of the other options
  ie column A has the best operator names.  Given the 4 options, I
would pick A for this reason alone.
- supports_ is better than can_ or can_call.
- has_operator_ is somehow better than has_ (makes the wording work better)
- supports_ might be better than has_operator_.  (Being a "mathy") I
understand Joachim's reasoning for "has", but I think "supports" flows
well and is also quite accurate in the meaning we are trying to
express.

So I'd vote for supports_A, if that column existed, else A.
supports_A is as short as D, flows like A and is accurate.

I'm not at all concerned that "supports" hasn't been used in
meta-templates before - I think that is possibly a plus.

Obviously just my opinion,
Tony