Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron - Review summary and decision
From: Daniel Herring (dherring_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 11:31:01
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:07:17 -0700,
> Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> 2011/3/27 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> > > - The main recurring suggestions found was the choice of name for the
>> > > operator traits with respect to the standard naming, naming in proto and
>> > > other boost libraries.
>> > > * Frederic and a few other seems to favor the proto naming scheme (more
>> > or
>> > > less the negate issue and the pre/post operator)
>> > > * the question of a common prefix is still open
>> >
>> > What about is_callable_plus, is_callable_plus_assign, ...
>> > i.e. is_callable_xxxx where xxxx the same as in Boost.Proto?
>> >
>> > I know that is_xxxx_callable reads better but I like to have a common
>> > prefix longer than is_.
>> >
>>
>> I think this is worse than has_operator_xxx or is_xxxable.
>
> The C++ standard proposal for concepts used HasXXX
> (e.g. HasRightShift) for such syntactic tests (see
> http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2008/n2502.pdf). I
> think the word "_operator_" doesn't add much here.
I anticipate facing a chunk of templated code and saying something like
"these templates are breaking for type T, what operators are they
dispatching on?".
# grep -r have_op_ headers
Short, distinctive names may help with the code archaeology side of
things.
Later,
Daniel