Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When looking at the current:
class X : boost::addable< X > { X& operator+=( const X& ); };
I wonder if addable is a good name. I thought that the classes are named by the operator that is provided by the user and that they add the operators that are based on it. Like here:
class Y : boost::less_than_comparable< Y > { friend bool operator<( const Y&, const Y& ); };
That given, the new class should be called 'addable', the current class should probably be called 'add_assignable' or something like that. But that would break the interface :(( Thoughts, anyone?
If anything, I think it's less_than_comparable which should change.
I was just pointing out an inconsistency and the problem to find a name for the newly proposed helpers. I think that the current names are really intuitive (although not consistent) and that we should keep them - if not for anything else than at least for compatibility. Still we need to find (hopefully intuitive) names for the new helpers that Daryle proposed. Let's make a list for possible helper class names providing operator+= for classes that have operator+:
add_assignable (opposite semantics of above's quote) reversed_addable (IMHO nasty, but an option anyway) addable_assign assign_addable [your cool idea here :)]
-- Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
