On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Gregory Crosswhite < gcross@phys.washington.edu> wrote:
On 7/18/11 10:51 AM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
I think this is a valid concern. For comparison, the introspection macros in Boost.MPL (which, I think, were part of the inspiration for TTI) are
BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TEMPLATE_DEF BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TEMPLATE_**NAMED_DEF BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_DEF BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_**DEF
I kind of like the _DEF suffixes, e.g., maybe we could consider something like BOOST_TTI_HAS_TYPE_DEF, etc., for the metafunction-generating macros?
While I would personally prefer to have the prefix/suffix be a bit more verbose to make its meaning more explicit, if that is the convention that MPL uses then it probably makes the most sense to adopt it for TTI as well.
Actually, now that I take a second look at it, putting TYPE and DEF together like this might not solve the naming problem you brought up... How about BOOST_TTI_GENERATE_HAS_TYPE BOOST_TTI_GENERATE_HAS_TYPE_NAMED or s/GENERATE/DEFINE/ or s/GENERATE/CREATE/ or...? - Jeff