Re: [boost] [type_traits] Big changes in develop

John Maddock wrote:

...

remove_cv_ref<T> (remove_cv)

I would be inclined to call that remove_cv_reference ?

remove_cv_ref is the already established name; everyone uses it. Boost has two such, one in base_from_member, another in function_types/example. remove_cv_ref: 3080 results in Google, remove_cv_reference: 6 results. Although I wouldn't be surprised if we get std::remove_cv_reference at some point, as one of those 6 results is in the LWG issue list.

...

combine_cv (copies the cv qualifiers from U to T)

See https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3970

copy_cv works too.

...

common_arithmetic_type (for arithmetic or enum types, their common type per "usual arithmetic conversions") composite_pointer_type ( the "composite pointer type" per the standard, that is, the pointer type to which both T and U will convert)

Should we add those traits to the library proper, or is it better for them to remain implementation details? The first three seem to be rediscovered on a daily basis.

IMO +1 on the first three, much less sure about the last 2.

The last two appear worthy because (a) they implement things that are specified in the standard; both "usual arithmetic conversions" and "composite pointer type" are in [expr] and (b) they deserve their own tests, and it's a bit odd to test implementation details. But either way is fine with me.

Care to submit a PR?

I'm not at the PR point yet, need to clean up the implementation and check against the existing tests (which are pretty slim by the way) first.