Re: [boost] [TTI] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-19 08:26:10

On 7/18/2011 9:57 PM, Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
> On 07/18/2011 05:41 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>>>
>>> 2) I strongly think that "CREATE_METAFUNCTION_FOR" (or something
>>> similar) should be inserted into all of the macro names because
>>> otherwise they strike me as being misleading. If I were not familiar
>>> with this library and I saw the macro BOOST_TTI_HAS_TYPE(X) in someone
>>> else's code, I would be confused because the name of the macro makes it
>>> sound like it is asking if X has some type even though the result
>>> doesn't seem to be used. By contrast, if I saw the macro
>>> BOOST_TTI_CREATE_METAFUNCTION_FOR_HAS_TYPE(X), it would be immediately
>>> clear to me that the purpose of this macro is to create a metafunction.
>>
>> I can do that but I wonder if programmers really want to type that
>> much<g>. I do not think they do even though I fully agree with you
>> that your macro names are much clearer than the shorter ones.
>>
>
> Elsewhere in the discussion it was proposed that "GENERATE" be used so
> that the macros would be called BOOST_TTI_GENERATE_HAS_TYPE etc, which
> is much less verbose than my original suggestion.  I strongly support
> this option, and believe that is very little additional typing for a
> great deal of clarity.

I will consider your suggestion. Thanks !

Eddie