Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 17:27:30

Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> 
>>> Are you suggesting that Spirit be renamed to Boost Parsing Library?
>>> Sorry, but no thanks.
>> I understand that it's too late to rename the library now. However, I'd
>> like to ask to reconsider naming of yet to be released libraries, like
>> Karma or Qi (or what was it?).
> 
> Just read the first paragraphs of the 'Introduction' in the docs and you'll
> know. That's something you'll have to do anyways, even if the library has a
> 'functional' name.

No, I wouldn't have to read the docs, if the library had a more 
descriptive name and I was looking for something else. If I'm looking 
for smart pointers and see a Boost.Format library, I immediately know 
that it's not what I'm looking for.

>>> I disagree. Karma was never advertized as a top-level Boost Library.
>> It should, IMO.
> 
> Think about this again and you'll see Joel's point. 
> 
> Karma is based on the idea, that a grammar usable to parse an input sequence
> may as well be used to generate the very same sequence in the output. Qi and
> Karma use exactly the same description of the (expected/generated) format -
> a grammar.

I've already admitted that this thought has its merit. However, this 
major submission still has to pass the review, IMHO.

>> How long did they exist as parts of Spirit? Were they approved to be
>> included as parts of Spirit and/or recommended/allowed to be used
>> independently? Why would Spirit contain a duplicate for Lambda and how
>> they can (or should they?) coexist gracefully in the user's code? Which
>> one should be used by default? These questions may sound silly to you,
>> but I recently happened to write an article about Boost libraries, and
>> such questions took a lot of time to answer. I believe, every developer
>> exploring Boost will stumble on such questions sooner or later.
> 
> All these question do not have any connection to the naming issue related to
> which you're trying to make a point.

These questions have connection to my second point about treating 
sub-libraries. This topic that was highlighted during the original 
discussion.