Re: [boost] Re: Naming Proposed Libraries

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-23 13:52:27

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> 
> >> > where <I>Name</I> is the full name of the library.
> >> > Libraries that are candidates for inclusion in Boost, whether at
> >> > the conceptual stage or in the review queue, can be referenced
> >> > without the <I>Boost</I> modifier or with the addition of
> >> > <I>Candidate, </I>as in <I>Boost Candidate.Name</I> 
> >> 
> >> Seems contorted.  What's wrong with 
> >> 
> >>   Boost.Name candidate
> >> 
> >> or 
> >> 
> >>   candidate Boost.Name
> >
> > I was trying to ensure "Boost" wasn't connected too closely.
> > With your version, "Boost.Name" still stands out since they are
> > juxtaposed and capitalized.  I was trying to make "Boost
> > Candidate" akin to "Boost" in modifying a library name.
> 
> Well, my intention is to make things clear, but not to make people
> write/speak unnaturally.  I don't want to be heavyhanded about this.
> I would like to see one other person agree with you that it's a good
> idea before including it in the document.

I've heard from no one for or against my ideas, or yours for that
matter.  Does anyone have an opinion on how this should be
codified?  What do you think should be the official naming
convention?

> >> And why are you capitalizing "candidate?"
> >
> > Because I was making the name "Boost Candidate.Name" rather than
> > "Boost.Name."  It could be "Boost.Candidate.Name," too.
> >
> >> > or <I>The
> >> > Candidate Boost Name Library</I>.
> >> 
> >> That's fine.
> >
> > But, if I follow your comments from above, neither "The" nor
> > "Library" should be capitalized, right?  
> 
> Right
> 
> > Then, there's still the
> > question of whether "Candidate" should be capitalized.
> 
> Well, if anyone buys into your version with the dot that puts
> "candidate" in the middle, you can capitalize it in that context as
> far as I'm concerned.  Otherwise, it's just an adjective and should be
> lowercase.

So, the question remains: Is "Boost Candidate.Name" instead of
"Boost.Name" a good idea in message traffic prior to acceptance?
(For that matter, Boost.Book and QuickBook could be modified to
generate such names automatically, with a switch that indicates
that a library has not yet been accepted.)

If you don't like that, do you think "candidate Boost.Name" is
good enough?  My concern is that "candidate," being lower case,
will pale next to "Boost.Name" and so lose its value.

There's also the question of whether "candidate" is the right
word.  One could make a case for "proposed," "tentative," and
other words.

Is there any reason to have a different modifier for libraries in
the review queue as compared to those simply under development
with aspirations to be reviewed?  For example, the former case
could readily use "candidate" or "proposed," whereas the latter
is not properly a Boost candidate, since it hasn't yet been
proposed for review, and so might better be described as
"potential."

Dave has made the case for not requiring name changes in
documentation.  If it can be done easily enough via Boost.Book
and QuickBook, I think it is reasonable to expect it in
documentation generated with those tools.  However, since the
use of those tools is not required, then it would be simplest and
most consistent to simply state that documentation need not
alter Boost.Name.

Let me know what you think should be our naming requirements.
Once we reach consensus, I'll create a diff for
more/discussion_policy.htm to capture them.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;