Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-21 15:26:24

At 08:58 AM 9/21/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> How about this form (using a filesystem library example):
>> // boost/filesystem/path.hpp
>> // Copyright Beman Dawes 2002. Use, modification and distribution is
>> // subject to the Boost Software License Version 1.0. (See
>> // file LICENSE-1.0 or
>> // See for documentation.
>> Is that OK?
>I like it. I still want to drop "the".

Isn't it better usage to include "the"? Anybody with a degree in English
lurking here? Unless someone comes forward with a strong argument, I think
we should leave the "the" in.

>> What should the wording associated with the library URL be? "See ...
>> for documentation." doesn't seem quite right. The docs at that URL may
>> be for a later version. The point is to direct people to the library's
>> home page, particularly if they are looking at a file which has become
>> separated from its documentation or is out-of-date.
>> // See for library home page.
>> Would that be better?
>What I've normally seen is something like
>// See for this library's current
>// version and documentation

I guess there are several formulations that would work.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at