Re: [boost] Naming Proposed Libraries

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."
>
>Thanks!
>
>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

-- 
__________________________________________________________
 James Fowler, Open Sea Consulting
 http://www.OpenSeaConsulting.com, Marietta, Georgia, USA
 Do C++ Right.  http://www.OpenCpp.org, opening soon!