From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-06 06:35:58
dan marsden wrote:
> Ronald Garcia wrote:
>> * The library name "Fusion", though not arbitrary, says little about
>> the library's purpose. There is precedent for this within boost,
>> however. A name change is not mandatory for the
>> library's acceptance, but it would be worth while for the authors to
>> consider a more telling name.
> I actually like the current name, as I also like the names Boost.Spirit and Boost.Xpressive as examples of other boost libs. In the absence of a natural name for the library such as the
> Boost Concept Library or the Boost Graph Library, I'd rather stick with the current name than change to some awkward acronym.
> Of course if somebody has a good idea for natural sounding name, that would be cool, and may
> help new users identify the library as being suitable/unsuitable for their needs.
Fusion was originally intended to be a code name. Now, I find it very
natural to refer to the library using that name. If anyone comes up
with a good acronym, I'm still inclined to use Fusion and add the
Acronym with it. Example:
Tuples and Algorithms Library
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk