RE: [boost] Generic Date-Time directory names?

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 12:09:00

A stupid question, why is there no direct mapping between the CVS
directories and the Boost.<X> names (where <X> is a meta-variable,
obviously, and could be "Lambda", "Threads"...)? Or is there, and I just
cannot see that pattern?

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William E. Kempf
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:44 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Generic Date-Time directory names?

From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> I see that Jeff Garland has started to add the Generic Date-Time
Library
to
> CVS.  That good!
>
> The library is being added in sub-directories boost/gdtl and
libs/gdtl.
>
> I'd much prefer the sub-directories have more explicit names.  For
example,
> boost/datetime and libs/datetime.
>
> Other than "io" and "crc", which are very well recognized
abbreviations,
> all our other libraries are going into sub-directories with explicit
names.
>
> Thus I'd like to see the Generic Date-Time sub-directory name changed.
>
> What do others think?

I agree for several reasons.  For sanity most Boost libraries have moved
away from using abreviated names, and even those that have had
abreviations
in the past are often called by dual names for this reason.  For
example,
the BGL is often also called by Boost.Graph.  This is good for two
reasons:
unless you are "in the know" the abreviations mean nothing, and there's
an
extremely high likelyhood for name clashes when abreviations are used
(BTL
could be Boost Time Library, Boost Thread Library, etc.).  No matter
what
the library is called, you can expect some users to start calling it
Boost.Time ;).  If a meaningful name is applied early on there will be
less
chance for a fracturing of names in the future.

Bill Kempf
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost