My apologies for coming late to this discussion, I appear to have reached my "bandwidth limit" for the max number of simultaneous discussions - not that that's all that hard :-( A couple of observations: * I'll go with the consensus on naming, and if that means changing the names of existing traits, then so be it - as long as the names that are part of the std draft remain unchanged. * Personally I prefer either has_XXX_operator or has_operator_XXX to the namespace approach. The latter has the advantage of grouping all the operator test names together in the alphabetical index, the former reads easier and more descriptively to me (we can always add a new section to the "type types by category" section of docs). But <shrug> I guess. * I'm not that keen on the operators:: subnamespace, to me that namespace is reserved for the operators library http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/utility/operators.htm it would have to be boost::type_traits::operators I guess which is rather less cute :-( * If boost::is_convertible doesn't work as required for this library, then we should fix it, not reinvent it. We already have a lot of compiler workarounds and acumulated knowledge in that version, it would be a shame to loose that by reinventing the wheel. Other than that, it would be really good to finally see comprehensive operator testing in type_traits. Regards, John.