Date: 2001-07-16 15:59:51
--- In boost_at_y..., "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_c...> wrote:
> I feel we should reject this since I don't feel it is appropriate
> Boost to mandate some of the things in these guidelines. The
> implementation of a Boost library is really up to the discretion of
> the submitter; if they happen to prefer foo_ to m_foo, then who are
> we to argue?
> I realise that this is not the intention of the "guidelines", and
> they are merely supposed to be suggestions, but I don't think they
> will be seen that way.
I feel we should accept the guidelines. The document clearly states
that the intent isn't to force a style on submitted libraries.
However, having a Boost sanctioned guideline makes the code much
easier to read and maintain if a library does follow some consistent
style, not only with itself but with other Boost libraries as well.
We can't hope to do this, however, unless there's an "official"
suggestion for Boost.
Further, one goal of the Boost libraries is for them to be considered
in future drafts of the standard. It will be much easier on the
comittee if any submissions are implemented in a style consistent
with the style used by the standard itself. Yes, some of the
implementation details such as names of private data members won't
mean much to the committee, but the public interface will.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk