From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-19 12:50:14
"Paul A. Bristow" wrote:
> Indeed that's what I did originally - but without agreement about the names!
It's easy to quibble about names, and everyone likes to do that.
In the case of names, someone (the library submitter) has to make a
decision, document which were the rejected alternative naming
schemes and move on. People will either adjust to your names or
detest them enough to ignore your library, which is less easy
if it's of good quality and thus hurts them a lot.
(Btw, I didn't have the impression that names were that much a
constroversy. Sure, people had different suggestions, but I don't
remember any "over my dead body" votes on a particular naming
In general, having a comprehensible, documented naming scheme
(whatever it is) seems important to me. Then, the user can
remember the scheme, guess "two_pi" (or "pi_times_2"?) without
looking at the documentation and actually has a good chance of
finding what he desires.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk