Re: [boost] [review][mp11] Formal review of Mp11

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][mp11] Formal review of Mp11
From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-22 09:35:52

El 22/07/2017 a las 11:23, Bjorn Reese via Boost escribió:
> On 07/17/2017 01:06 PM, Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost wrote:
>
>> My personal opinion is that 1 should be given priority, followed by 2 
>> and, at a distance, 3.
>> It is a submission for Boost we're dealing here with. In that light, 
>> mp_ sounds like noise
>> to me (also for 3, but this is not a subject for this review).
>
> The main problem is that some names would collide with C++ keywords. A
> quick scan of the documentation reveal these possible conflicts: bool,
> true, false, int, if, and void.
>
> I am wondering if there is an alternative solution to the mp_ prefix
> and the MPL-style _ suffix.

Besides prefixing and suffixing, the only reamining alternative is using 
another name,
of course.

> For instance, type-traits have faced the same problem and selected
> synonyms, e.g. std::conditional instead of if, or longer names, e.g.
> true_type and false_type. 

Personally, I like MPL-style suffixing better: it's a sort of tradition 
within Boost
(boost::hana::and_, boost::proto::if_, boost::msm::front::euml::while_), 
name
intent is clear and seems to me the _ suffix it's automatically parsed 
out by the
(trained) human eye.

Joaquín M López Muñoz