Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 13:17:30

dan marsden wrote:
> I'm sure everybody knows what Boost is? Are we considering renaming
> to "Peer Reviewed Formative C++ Library Collection". Sorry if that's
> a slightly silly example, but we cope with names such as Google,
> Boost, Spirit, Qi, Karma etc. every day, it takes very little time to
> get used to them. The more explicit names aren't always more helpful,
> renaming Fusion to "heterogeneous container library" would IMO be a
> backward step for example.

I've already answered this to Joel. I didn't say the name should be more 
verbose, but it should be descriptive. "Qi", for example, doesn't look 
descriptive to me.

> IMO library authors should be left to pick
> the names, and Boost should not waste valuable time over analyzing
> them.

I think, library names are no less important than names of classes and 
functions they consist of. Library name is the first thing a user knows 
about the library, and it's a shame when it tells nothing.

>>>> The formatting capability is a brand new domain, and therefore
>>>> it should be extracted as another distinct Boost library.
> It may build on top of Spirit, it may use the same coding guidelines,
> but it should a be separately reviewed library in its own directory
> under boost.
>>> I disagree. Karma was never advertized as a top-level Boost
>>> Library.
>> It should, IMO.
>> 
>>> It is a Spirit sub-library. Parsing and generation are two sides
>>> of the same coin.
>> These tasks are the opposite. I don't see why they should be mixed
>> in a single library.
> 
> Precisely because, as you say they are opposite (dual) to each other,
>  and so present a good opportunity to address some missing symmetry
> in previous versions of spirit.

Ok, you and Joel may have a point here, although I'm not entirely convinced.

> I personally believe we should lean towards allowing authors creative
>  freedom, even if they do grow the scope of their libraries. It's
> difficult enough for Boost to recruit sufficient high quality
> developers to produce libraries the community need.

I'm not against creative freedom at all. What I'm saying are two things:
1. Please, chose more descriptive names for your libraries.
2. Major changes in library functionality should be reviewed.