From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 11:55:31
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> 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 have noticed the problem, but since such libraries may not be
accepted, isn't it wrong to put Boost in the name, even if
> I understand the problem. With the interfaces library, the documentation
> contains a prominent disclaimer, and so does every source file.
That's a terrific approach, but it does mean you have to remember
to remove the disclaimers when the library enters the review
> I can't think of anything better right now, but to me "proposed" suggests that
> the libray is in the review queue.
How about just omitting "Boost?" At this point, the "Boost
Interfaces Library" is just the "Turkanis Interfaces Library" or
the "Interfaces Library," right? IOW, make it wrong to modify a
library name with "Boost" until it has been accepted (though the
documentation can be written as if it had been accepted, with
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk