Re: [boost] Re: Re: Naming Proposed Libraries

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