viboes wrote: ...
I prefer has_division_operator than has_operator_division, and yet more than has_operator_divide.
division_operator ::= operator/()
...
has_division<T>::type ...
has_division_operator<T>::type
I assume that for consistency that these all imply multiplication_operator has_multiplication<T>::type has_multiplication_operator<T>::type has_addition_operator<T>::type has_subtraction_operator<T>::type ... Is that correct? Also given the growth of EDSL's and operator overloading in general are these names too domain specific? For example boost::filesystem overloads operator/ for concatenating a path: p / "file.txt". Has thought been given to more agnostic names such as: has_operator_star has_operator_slash has_operator_plus has_operator_minus ... Jeff