I like can_can_operator_XXXX. Have you considered can_call_XXXX_operator? BTW, I don't see in the review result any constraint on the names for XXXX. I'm designing Boost.Opaque that provides some meta-function to forward the operators from the opaque class to the underlying type such as using_XXXX, hiding_XXXX and I would want to use the same as in your library. Please, could you give the list of XXXX that will be provided by the library?
I have updated this page for this (last column of the table): https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators This is my current proposal which is very close to Boost.Proto apart for pre/_inc/dec->pre/post_increment/decrement and negate->unary_minus (to keep symmetry with unary_plus). If I do not see too much yuk on this proposal by end of this week (Sun. April, 3rd), this is what I am going to use. Regards, Frédéric