John Maddock wrote:
has_operator_less<T, R = bool>
Maybe should be has_operator_less< T, U = T, R = bool > ? (one step further than frederic's suggestion, and in line with your has_operator_plus suggestions below)
So how about: has_operator_plus<T, U = T, R = dont_care> ?
Hard to decide what R should default to in this case, I'm tempted by the "permissive" case of dont_care because it will do the right thing in more mixed arithmetic cases, but the alternative would be to default R to T I guess.
Default R = common_type<T,U>::type (the common_type from another thread) ? And (somewhat off-topic) I think the default common_type should *not* use decltype (i.e., Boost.Typeof) if not available, which would limit common_type<T,U>::type to be either T or U most of the time, unless specialized. Also, why couldn't void take the place of dont_care ?
Just my 2c, John.
And that's mine. - Jeff