RE: [boost] Library names: MPL

From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-24 14:42:39

From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>

> > From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> > 
> > The alternative should be, IMO, a shorter name, not an acronym.  If 
> > full word names can't be found, then abbreviations.
> >
[snip]
> I agree in prinicple that acronyms are bad. However, I can't think of
> anything better for this particular name. I also want to keep the
> aural analogy to the well-known acronym "STL".

I tend to agree that the MPL name works well for me, but I do agree that
it may be obscure for new Boosters (though, as Peter noted, I'm not sure
that a new name will make MPL particularly easier to understand for new
users.)

So one thought is to rid of the mpl namespace (!) and prefix every MPL
class with meta_ (e.g., boost::meta_if, boost::meta_max_element, etc.).

Then the library and its corresponding libs/path could be as verbose as
desired (e.g., libs/template_metaprogramming), as components would be
#included via "boost/meta_XXX.hpp" (and perhaps a mass-#include via a
"boost/template_metaprogramming.hpp" header).

To tell the truth, I don't even like my own proposal, but it might be
helpful to move the discussion along (even if to just say no) :-P

Thanks,
Eric Friedman