Dear All,
The fast track review of Frédéric Bron's extensions to the Type Traits Library is ending tomorrow. If you plan to submit a review, please do so as soon as possible.
I am clearly *in favor* of this extension (BTW what would be the precise name for it?). I had fun evaluating it and trying a few experiments. Alas as a result of those and the discussion on the list, I reached a point where I feel I need some more time and I'd like to see some more discussion on a point that I'd like to highlight:
Naming
(1) has_operator_xxx seems to be imprecise and misleading.
How so? Personally I like the idea of a common prefix for all of these.
(2) has_operator_xxx introduces a redundant prefix 'has_operator' that IMO is unnecessary
Maybe, but it makes it explicit what you're testing, and puts all the operator traits together in the alphabetical index - a small point I know, but it is useful none the less!
(3) If there are close relationships between Concepts and operator traits their names should express this relation as well.
My current proposal is:
plus_assign_callable or even better plus_assingable instead of has_operator_plus_assign
I'd prefer is_plus_assignable if we go that route. John.