Incrementable is a real word and is also the word used by the standard i.e. std::incrementable. It is hardly abuse to use real world terms for things, and I disagree with the assertion that a universal style is necessary to accommodate your own aesthetic considerations for use of the English language as long as the style used is consistent in this codebase. You are ignoring the obvious, that "-able" has incredibly clear meaning in this context, i.e. to make a word active rather than passive; i.e. it can be so. It would be absurd if used to show ownership, but that isn't being done. The concept isn't that a function "has begin", it's that the begin act can be done on it; it doesn't matter if it "has" some concept of begin if that begin isn't a method to begin the process of iteration, so querying if the type is beginable makes perfect sense. Has should be used for fields, since that is data possed/owned/referenced by the type, and should never be used in my opinion to query the presence of functionality; functionality is a question of "do-ability" i.e. -able, not ownership.

​@@masondeross I think you have a point. using the right word is very opinion based and depends on the particular case. I don't fully agree that even keeping it consistent in the code base is really necessary (it's more about when someone sees it how quickly they can infer what the concept means without looking further). all the can/is/has/-able have there places they are just wasy to communicate intent.

I am not sure about C++, but in Java the -able naming is used because it actually makes more sense from a natural language point of view. I would rather say "The class List is a Beginable" than "The class List is a CanBegin"

How about a type traits with says 5 method requirements?

true It's important to point that out because in other case (unlike in this case) it would really make a difference

I don't understand your question. There is no reflection in cpp(yet). So I guess the answer is very likely to be no.

Check out the techniques presented here - I believe it can be used to check whether padding is used in aggregate types. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/naxka6913pOanI0.html

Actually it has done it since the beginning of C++, now it's just easier to achieve and actually readable by people that are not super professional in templates.

@@cppnext-alexd I do not know what this says about C++ has a language. Is this a good or bad thing? It is so complex that its compilers have emergent behaviours that were never predicted but discovered.

@@jewulo it's a happy discovery. But since then it's planned and the progress is wonderful.

Now we need to run metaprograms on GPU or parallell CPU😍

Well. It's sort of old hat that meta programming was discovered by mistake. Turns out it's Turing complete, or so the canon goes, I believe. Being able to compute things at compile time is not in and of itself a bad thing. You can precalculate look up tables for example.

The examples the speaker uses are very impractical and atypical of the features being shown. They're likely miscellaneous examples to make the point, but the impracticality is distracting for sure But in the end of their talk, the point is that *they agree with you* - they're providing historical context about C++ meta programming to show where it's at now and how much it's improved since the clunky, unmanageable SFINAE soup versions.

You do avoid a lot of boilerplate sometimes

@@AirAKose I don't agree with the impractical point. It really depends on what you do. All the examples are very practical in my line of work.

He started with the old way of doing it, and then jumps to how the new way is better.

If you know how to use every feature of cpp, you can program in almost in any language very fine( only ok in functional programming languages though.) So you should feel lucky to be forced to learn from grandfather of all modern languages.