From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 13:29:21
Rob Stewart <stewart <at> sig.com> writes:
> From: David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com>
> > Thomas Witt <witt <at> acm.org> writes:
> > > That being said, I'll stop complaining now and we'll see what time
> > > will tell. It might well prove me wrong.
> > I'd rather hear some real suggestions
> Yes. If there are alternatives that have been forgotten or that
> can be presented for consideration, we need to hear about them.
> Both Boost.Range and Boost.Iostream will benefit.
I tend to favor the shorter, less wart-like names
It seems to play nicely with
Could we agree to move the boost_ prefix?
I think the amount of costomization points that are needed is
so small that boost_ qualification is not needed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk