2011/3/28 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>:
Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/3/27 Frédéric Bron <frederic.bron@m4x.org>:
- The main recurring suggestions found was the choice of name for the operator traits with respect to the standard naming, naming in proto and other boost libraries. * Frederic and a few other seems to favor the proto naming scheme (more or less the negate issue and the pre/post operator) * the question of a common prefix is still open
What about is_callable_plus, is_callable_plus_assign, ... i.e. is_callable_xxxx where xxxx the same as in Boost.Proto?
I know that is_xxxx_callable reads better but I like to have a common prefix longer than is_.
Is there any problem related to using a short prefix like "is_"?
I like short prefixes when they are meaningful, but is_add/is_addition/is_plus means nothing.
sigh ... I assume this is clear for everyone, particularly as Frédéric's proposal has an additional suffix _callable in combination here. I am particularly interested if there is a rational against a short prefix *in general* as Frédéric's statement
... but I like to have a common prefix longer than is_.
seem to imply such a general rule. Frédéric, are you generally prefer prefix name extensions? Why not consider suffixes, if they read better, e.g. xxxx_is_callable or xxxx_callable or (shorter and may implicitly be correct for "is_" and "are_") xxxx_applicable Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de