At Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:07:17 -0700, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 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_.
I think this is worse than has_operator_xxx or is_xxxable.
The C++ standard proposal for concepts used HasXXX (e.g. HasRightShift) for such syntactic tests (see http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2008/n2502.pdf). I think the word "_operator_" doesn't add much here. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com