On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/3/28 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
As I stated in my review already I can live with a simple
has_xxxx where xxxx
are most unifying names as proposed in https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Naming/Operators
I know that, but there is wiggle room yet in what goes in your MUP column and I was proposing "can_call_" as a shorter version of Frédéric's "is_callable_" idea that reads better and is shorter. Since he raised the question, he apparently hasn't accepted your "has_" prefix suggestion yet and is still fishing for ideas.
I kind of like something like has_op_X or check_op_X as a naming scheme. Clear, short, and distinctive. While names like can_call_X or is_X_callable work, they don't emphasize that X is an operator nor do they seem distinctive for text searches. Also, the naming table on the wiki may be missing a few entries. Compare table 5.1.3 in the following link. (I am not recommending its abbreviations, just its coverage.) http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangling Later, Daniel