From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-07 11:31:02
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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."
The trouble with those is that they describe a library that depends on
another. We need a word to describe the library being depended upon.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk