Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification (2006-07-16/RC_1_34_0)

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-18 08:39:42

"Martin Bonner" <martin.bonner_at_[hidden]> writes:

> ----Original Message----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota Sent:
> 18 July 2006 12:48 To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification
> (2006-07-16/RC_1_34_0) 
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:48:20 +0100, Anthony Williams
>> <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The inspection report has duly noted that the current thread library
>>> doesn't come under the BSL. This is the main reason for the thread
>>> rewrite effort currently underway. How do we mark the existing
>>> files, so they won't cause so much noise in the report? Do we just
>>> add 
>>> 
>>> // boostinspect::nolicense
>>> 
>>> to the top of each file?
>> 
>> Yes, with one colon though. It can be anywhere in the file. Since we
>> haven't use that tag yet, we are still in time to change it to
>> something like boostinspect:nobsl or similar, if we prefer, as
>> "nolicense" could be a bit confusing to the casual reader (does it
>> have a license, as stated at the top, or not? :-))
>
> boostinspect:notbooststandardlicense ?

Looks good to me, though it might look better with underscores, as per the
usual boost naming:

    boostinspect:not_boost_standard_license

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk