Re: [boost] Re: Review: Boost Test Library

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-16 10:51:39

The only excuse for these acronyms, AFAICT, is that it gets cumbersome to
refer to a library as "The Boost Foo Library" over and over within the
library's own documentation. I didn't want an acronym for the Python lib,
but eventually found it hard to make the docs read easily without one. Can
anyone think of a good alternative?

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Review: Boost Test Library

> --- In boost_at_y..., "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_c...> wrote:
> > From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> > > > The review for Beman Dawes' proposal of a Boost Test Library...
> > >
> > > I'm going to be using the test_lib stuff during my final
> polishing
> > > of the BTL...
> >
> > So does T stand for Test or Thread?  Looks like Test will be first.
> > But surely T should have been reserved for Template. :-)
> >
> > Can we please stop this trend of calling all our libraries BxL?
> > I am ever so easily confused.
>
> The Boost Thread Library was the first to be called the BTL,
> regardless of the chronology of acceptance ;).
>
> Seriously, though, someone else coined the acronym, not myself.  I'm
> not married to any name or acronym at this point, though there will
> be a lot of documentation to change if we go by a different
> name/acronym at this point, and it's just going to get worse.  So...
> if anyone has a different name, or thinks that we should stick with
> Boost Thread Library but not use the acronym BTL, speak up now so I
> can proactively avoid work in the future :).
>
> Bill Kempf
>
>
>
>