2011/3/21 John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net>:
(2.3) I'd prefer has_xxx over has_operator_xxx because I think that operator names xxx can stand for themselves without an "operator_ reminder" prefix. The has_operator_ prefix is lengthy and introduces unnecessary redundancy.
Hmm, I'm not sure it is completely redundant - I prefer long_descriptive_names to short_cute_ones because it makes the code easier to understand - even though it result in a touch more typing.
There may be conflicting principles e.g. descriptiveness, ease of perception versus conciseness, simplicity and naming decisions may vary between them. (2.3.1) In my view a naming style of systematic pre or postfixes may lead to reduced readability, due to induced redundancy that clutters code. My favorite example is the use of pre/suffix "type" both in c++ language design as well as in well known naming conventions (std/boost). I think (1) is less readable than (2): // "type" is used 5 times as pre or suffix (1) typedef typename foo_type::key_type mykey_type; // instead of (2) type mykey = foo::key; (2.3.2) In addition, if say 'plus' is a functor that wraps operator '+' in the standard's <functional> header, would we want to name it template<class T> struct functor_for_operator_plus; //? Many aspects about a name in a program are given by its context. I think it is an unnecessary introduction of verbosity and redundancy often, to repeat information as part of a name that is already clear by its context. This is what I mean when I talk about a reminder prefix. string x_str; // suffix str redundant. Clear from the context. The context for std::plus is: * There is a set of very important function symbols called operators. * For those core symbols there are uniformly usable functors that wrap the operators. * From this it is clear that all those functor classes are functor_for_operator_xxx So functor_for_operator_ does not have to repeated as component of all those names. Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de