Re: [boost] Re: Naming Proposed Libraries

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 11:12:53

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Naming Proposed Libraries

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> When discussing libraries in public that are under development but not
>> yet accepted into Boost, I think it's problematic to refer to "The
>> Boost <whatever> library" or "Boost.<whatever>" without qualification.
>> Our peer-review process is respected, and these libraries are not yet
>> officially blessed by Boost.  I don't want to dilute the value of
>> Boost acceptance.  Can we please make a habit of prepending "The
>> proposed" or something similar?  For example, I suggest "The proposed
>> Boost Interfaces library.
>
> I understand the problem. With the interfaces library, the documentation
> contains a prominent disclaimer, and so does every source file.
>
> I can't think of anything better right now, but to me "proposed" suggests 
> that
> the libray is in the review queue.
>
>> Thanks!

I have been definitely guilty of being careless in this regards to 
referencing proposed libraries in public, and I will be more careful in the 
future. I assume though that this mailing list itself is not sufficiently 
"public" to warrant the more verbose naming?

I think the BIL is as clear in its documentation as can be reasonably 
expected.

Whether or not a library is in a review queue is not really a significant 
concern is it, as it doesn't take any special requirements to get into the 
queue?

Christopher Diggins
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
http://www.ootl.org