From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 14:23:42
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
That's more that I would normally ask for.
> I can't think of anything better right now, but to me "proposed" suggests that
> the libray is in the review queue.
I don't know why. "Proposed" might mean it's just a glimmer in
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk