Hi Frédéric, list, 2011/4/21 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron@m4x.org>:
Hello everybody,
It would be a shame if we all get angry from this discussion. I can propose the following to stop arguing:
1. each member of boost or boost-user can contribute (deadline April 29th 11:59pm CET) by giving his/her list of best names (just one list per member; only FULL lists are valid in the same order as described here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames).
Here is my proposal for the operator trait names. Consistent with my preference on cross library and c++ standard naming consistency these are the collections of names that are (measurably) most consistent with the names used for operators in the standard (header <functional>), Boost.Proto and other Boost libraries. They are the name component called "Most Unifying Proposal (MUP)" from Wiki-page https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators prefixed by "has_". I chose "has_" for the same reason: Consistency within boost, because the type traits library uses has_ in similar instances. The argument, that this is an imprecise naming because for free standing operators ownership can not be determined is unimportant, because we may conceive the complete type signature as the type that "owns" the operator: A x B -> B has_plus Both name components, prefix "has_" and the most unifying operator component are simple, commonly used, known from the language standard and boost libraries, so they will be *expected* by users and most easily recognized and remembered which leads to optimal usability. To save you some time, I have inserted my proposal as column D into the Wiki at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/GuideLines/Naming/OperatorTraitNames Cheers, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de