On 11/20/2010 4:15 AM, viboes wrote:
Edward Diener-3 wrote:
snip...
Alternatively I could even see putting all the operator traits in their own namespace of 'boost::operators', dropping the 'operator_' in their name, and allowing the end-user to surface them to just the 'boost' namespace via a using declaration as they like. But then again, I am a very strong supporter of namespaces and allowing the end-user to expose what they want from namespaces via 'using'.
Note that interfaces must be designed not only to satisfy the developer but to improve the readability. If a namespace is used, as a user I will need to be able to decipher that
has_division<T>::type
intends to be "has division operator". I will find much more clear If I have to read
has_division_operator<T>::type
IMO, namespaces in this case doesn't make the code more readable.
'boost::type_traits::operators::has_division<T>::type' seems readable to me. Or if you think this is too long you could use a namepsace alias and do: namespace tt_operator = boost::type_traits::operators; and then 'tt_operator::has_division<T>::type' is short enough. Surely you have heard of that famous saying, "Readability is in the eye of the developer" <g>.