From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-23 15:24:10
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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
I don't have an opinion; I don't think we need an official naming
convention. I just want people to distinguish accepted from proposed
libraries in their speaking and writing. No need to make a big
production of it.
> So, the question remains: Is "Boost Candidate.Name" instead of
> "Boost.Name" a good idea in message traffic prior to acceptance?
I should think my opinion would be obvious by now: "Boost
Candidate.Name" is better than "Boost.Name" for that purpose. OTOH I
don't care if someone wants to say "proposed Boost.Name" or whatever.
> (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.)
Overhead. Complication. This is a simple thing; no need to make it
into something big.
> 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.
It's not that imporant.
> There's also the question of whether "candidate" is the right
> word. One could make a case for "proposed," "tentative," and
> other words.
Those are fine with me too.
> 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
> 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.
The requirements should be "distinguish accepted boost libraries from
things someone hopes will be in Boost, someday." Beyond that, I don't
-- 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