From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-15 20:21:18
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> - The dot convention is useful, as long as it can be applied to all boost
> libraries. Currently it works only with those with one-word names or which have
> standard nicknames or abbreviations:
> Boost.Type Traits // Looks funny,
Looks okay to me.
> Boost.Greatest Common Divisor Least Common Multiple // ???
That looks funny even without the dot. The library name is too long.
> If the dotted versions of Boost library names will be appearing in books with
> some frequency, all libraries with multi-word names must be given some official
> abbreviation. E.g., Greatest Common Divisor Least Common Multiple could be
> 'Boost.GCD,' Boost.Gcd', 'Boost.GcdLcm' or something else.
For these libraries, that's probably a good idea anyway.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk