Edward Diener wrote:
On 11/18/2010 3:16 AM, Frédéric Bron wrote:
Using namespaces, it would become: namespace boost { namespace operators { has_equal_to has_not_equal_to has_greater has_greater_equal has_less has_less_equal has_plus has_minus ... }}
There would be a small inconsistency because for example we have boost::algorithm:: (singular) but boost::operators:: (plural) but we clear cannot use boost::operator::.
I would not worry about the inconsistency.
There is precedent: boost::tuples, for example.
For such a decision, that is if we go for has_operator_xxx or operators::has_xxx, what is the practice to decide what we accept?
Discussion on the list and then, as Edward noted, get John Maddock's approval.
I think if we go for a boost::operators namespace we should not worry about tacking the 'operator_' onto the individual names at all, as in your brief enumeration above.
+1
OTOH if, like the rest of type_traits, it all goes in the boost namespace, my preference is to use 'has_operator_' as the prefix to all of the operator functionality.
+1 _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.