At Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:42:29 +0200, 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_"?
The problem is that it tends to connote conformance to semantic requirements as well as syntactic ones. That's why we had EqualityComparable and HasEqual in the standard proposal for concepts. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com