Paul A. Bristow-2 wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Klimpel Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:41 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Type Traits Extension by Frederic Bron
Thomas Heller wrote:
WRT naming i think we should strive for consistent naming in overall boost, not just the type_traits library. Proto, for example, names the operators as well, as does Boost.Operator. The following list of names from Proto looks quite good to me, and doesn't seem to contain any "odd sounding" names like "operator_plus_equal"
<http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_1/doc/html/proto/users_guide.html#bo > ost_proto.users_guide.intermediate_form.tags_and_metafunctions>
There would seem to me to be a very strong case for having the same names as in Boost.Proto and Boost.Operator.
+1 Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Review-Boost-Type-Traits-Extension-by-Fre... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.