From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-24 00:56:02
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>>"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>>So, the question remains: Is "Boost Candidate.Name" instead of
>>>"Boost.Name" a good idea in message traffic prior to acceptance?
>>What about just "Name" ?
> It may not be clear from "Name" that it represents a library (e.g. "FSM"); or it
> may not be clear which library is intended (e.g. "iostreams" or "algorithms"
> could refer to a boost library or a standard library).
> Libraries with disctinctive names, such as Spirit, don't have this problems. But
> consider the candidate Boost Interfaces library (which started this discussion).
> If I write:
> "I'm working to make Interfaces easier to use"
> many people might have no idea that I'm talking about a specific library under
> development. But if I say
> "I'm working to make the candidate Boost Interfaces library easier to use"
> it's perfectly clear.
Yes it's clear.. But so is what I would think most people would write if
they did not use the Boost label:
"I'm working to make Interfaces Library easier to use"
So even though I agree that using just "Name" is not effectual.. I also
don't think removing "Boost" deprives anyone of accurately communicating
what they are talking about.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk