Is there any problem related to using a short prefix like "is_"?
I have nothing against "is_" but what follows must be descriptive enough, "is_xxxx" is too short. I do not like to add "able" to all operators because it looks strange for some of them (needs to add "_comparable" for <, >,...; "orable", "andable", "xorable" are very strange...). "has_xxxx" looks too short to me and the review reveiled that "has_operator_xxxx" or "has_xxxx" alone was confusing because it is the wrong meaning: we are not testing if the types have the operator (as member) but if that operator can be applied. However, I like the new proposal from Stewart (thank you) "can_call_xxxx" which could also be "can_apply_". I like it because: - it means what it checks, - they will all be sorted alphabetically; what happens when I want to use such a trait? I remember easily the prefix and go straight ahead to the alphabetical list to get the end. Not so easy with a suffix. Now the question is do we need "_operator" in the name which seems logical to me: "can_call/apply_operator_xxxx". But it is quite long. Some propose just "_op" -> "can_call/apply_op_xxxx". This is not something that will be written very often when used so that maybe a longer name is better because then when you read it again months later, you understand it immediately. Kind regards for all comments received, Frédéric