From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-08 09:09:13
on Tue Aug 07 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> 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
No, a dependent depends upon a dependency. This is the terminology
used in build systems. As confusable as it may be, it makes little
sense to invent new terms IMO.
-- 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