[boost] Re: Rationale for library name convention [Was: Dot in Boost Library Names?]

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 10:08:57

Kresimir Fresl <fresl_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Kresimir Fresl <fresl_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>>David Abrahams wrote:
> [...]
>>>>These are not C++ identifiers; they're names.
>
>>>David.Abrahams
> [...]
>
>> His question was analogous to asking why we don't write
>> david::abrahams.
>
> No -- as far as I know, we write neither david::abrahams nor
> David.Abrahams.

Fair enough; he asked "why do we use a dot?" and "why don't we use
scope resolution and lowercase?"  The second question is the analogous
one.  I don't have an answer for the first one (or a position on
whether dotting is good), other than -- as I wrote in my original
message -- that there's historical precedent.  That question was
already answered as well as I know how, and when you "couldn't resist"
-- which, BTW, I didn't appreciate -- I only tried to explain the
reasons that the scope resolution operator and lowercase was
inappropriate.

not-justifying-the-dot-ly y'rs,
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com