On 11/17/2010 3:48 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Frédéric Bron wrote:
Those names are not consistent with boost::has_new_operator. That is, you need to rename them like the following for consistency:
s/has_operator_\(.+\)/has_\1_operator/
The result won't be perfect. For example, "has_operator_divides" should be renamed "has_division_operator."
Renaming "has_new_operator" seems more appropriate, however. "has_operator_new" puts "operator" and "new" in the right order as the query is for operator new, not the new operator.
The same discussion applies to the other traits.
The question of naming has already been discussed here : http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/194625
There wasn't much discussion. You asked about "has_operator_less_than" versus "has_less_than_operator" and I suggested that the former is more consistent with C++ syntax, but that deviates from boost::has_new_operator.
At that time, we preferred has_operator_xxx to has_xxx_operator.
I still think its better.
I agree also. Having all the operator traits begin with 'has_operator_' makes their use easier to remember. Alternatively I could even see putting all the operator traits in their own namespace of 'boost::operators', dropping the 'operator_' in their name, and allowing the end-user to surface them to just the 'boost' namespace via a using declaration as they like. But then again, I am a very strong supporter of namespaces and allowing the end-user to expose what they want from namespaces via 'using'.