From: James Fowler (boost_list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 13:02:25
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."
>P.S. I hope it's obvious, but I don't think the documentation for the
>proposed library ought to resort to such contortions.
FWIW, it would probably be trivial to support this distinction in
QuickBook. One possibility would be adding a "doc_approval_date" member
to the grammar, so that whenever "doc_approval_date" is left unspecified
QuickBook can add a variety of consistent indications that the library
is still at the "proposed" stage. We could even support generating
"beta" versions of the docs with such warnings disabled... And this
wouldn't require any contortions on the part of the proposed library's
author (presuming, of course, that they are using QuickBook for
documentation ;) )!
-- __________________________________________________________ James Fowler, Open Sea Consulting http://www.OpenSeaConsulting.com, Marietta, Georgia, USA Do C++ Right. http://www.OpenCpp.org, opening soon!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk