Date: 2001-02-16 10:47:34
--- In boost_at_y..., Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_c...> wrote:
> In message <96jgdm+jihm_at_e...>, williamkempf_at_h... writes
> >Seriously, though, someone else coined the acronym, not myself.
> >not married to any name or acronym at this point, though there
> >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.
> >if anyone has a different name, or thinks that we should stick
> >Boost Thread Library but not use the acronym BTL, speak up now so
> >can proactively avoid work in the future :).
> Boost Concurrency Library (BCL) or Boost Multi-threading Library
The names are fine, but we still have the question of whether or not
we should be using acronyms. With Boost in the name it's nearly
impossible for us to conflict with other library names, but the
acronyms are much more likely to collide with other acronyms already
in use. Even if this doesn't pose possible legal problems (does it?)
it does make it more likely that the acronym will just confuse
readers/users of the libraries. The only compelling reason to keep
them, as David Abrahams points out, is that the titles of the
libraries are quite long and cumbersome for use in documentation and
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk