Re: [boost] Refering to Boost.Build in print

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-04 07:31:38

"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In the months leading up to the publication of Dave's and Aleksey's
>>> TMP book, there was a discussion of the proper form for referring to
>>> Boost libraries in published material.
>>>
>>> I'm writing about Boost.Build, and I'm planning to refer to it as
>>> Boost.Build most of the time. My question is: if I refer to
>>> Boost.Build as "the Boost build system," is this a proper name or a
>>> description? How should it be capitalized?
>>
>> I guess the most consistent thing would be to capitalize "Build" and
>> leave the rest as you have written it.
>
> Really? To me it seems a bit odd to treat the works "build" and "system"
> differently, when they are both components on the term "build
> system." 

The standard for libraries is, e.g. "the Boost Bind library."

> My instinct would have been to use either "Boost Build System" or
> "Boost build system."
>
> When you mention consistency, do you mean consistency with the usage "Boost Xxxx
> library," in which "Boost" and the library name are capitalized but the word
> "library" isn't? To me the parallel doesn't seem very strong.

No, not very strong, but it's more consistent.  Once you start calling
the system "Boost.Build," the connection between "build" and "system"
becomes a lot weaker and "Boost Build system" seems to make more sense.

> At any rate, I don't have a strong preference, and I'm happy to use
> whatever you think is best.

I don't have a strong preference either; the convention I cited is the
only one I can come up with rationale for.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com