From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 11:12:53
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_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
> the libray is in the review queue.
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
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
Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk