From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-07 11:20:25
on Tue Aug 07 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> A draft "Development and Release Practices" document is up on the Wiki:
>>> Comments welcomed!
>> Overall this sounds good. The one thing I'm not sure about is the introduced
>> dichotomy between core and non-core libraries. Why not simply talk about
>> prerequisite libraries as those libraries others depend on ?
>> This reuses the technical term 'prerequisite', and doesn't overload the meaning
>> of 'core'. In other words, whether or not a library belongs into the 'core' (whatever
>> that is), and whether it is a prerequisite for another library, are two distinct and
>> orthogonal questions.
> Ah! I wasn't happy with 'core' either, but failed to come up with
> anything better. "Prerequisite" is definitely better.
I would use "dependent" and "dependency."
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk