From: Greer, Joe (jgreer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-07 14:18:13
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Paul A Bristow
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:01 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Development and Release Practices
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> >[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Marcus Lindblom
> >Sent: 07 August 2007 16:43
> >To: boost_at_[hidden]
> >Subject: Re: [boost] Development and Release Practices
> >>> 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.
> >I've used 'dependee', but I'm not sure if it's correct English.
> No according to me - and as I'm really English English, I should know ;¬))
> I don't think there is an existing word, surprisingly.
> I am the provider for my dependents, but that too isn't quite the right
> It doesn't quite imply that I really am depended on?
> But how about "dependent" for the file that depends on another and
> "depended" for the file that is depended upon
> The 'upon' or 'on' is implied of course
> "depended-on" would be clearer but shorter?
You could also use the word 'requires'. Library X requires library Y. Says the right thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk