Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-18 14:43:45

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Gregory Crosswhite <
gcross_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 7/18/11 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I think this is a valid concern.  For comparison, the introspection macros
>> in Boost.MPL (which, I think, were part of the inspiration for TTI) are
>>
>> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TEMPLATE_DEF
>> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TEMPLATE_**NAMED_DEF
>> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_DEF
>> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_**DEF
>>
>> I kind of like the _DEF suffixes, e.g., maybe we could consider something
>> like BOOST_TTI_HAS_TYPE_DEF, etc., for the metafunction-generating macros?
>>
>
> While I would personally prefer to have the prefix/suffix be a bit more
> verbose to make its meaning more explicit, if that is the convention that
> MPL uses then it probably makes the most sense to adopt it for TTI as well.
>

Actually, now that I take a second look at it, putting TYPE and DEF together
like this might not solve the naming problem you brought up...

How about

BOOST_TTI_GENERATE_HAS_TYPE
BOOST_TTI_GENERATE_HAS_TYPE_NAMED

or s/GENERATE/DEFINE/ or s/GENERATE/CREATE/ or...?

- Jeff