Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-03 11:21:41
> Obviously, having a simple, denotative name for a library is a good thing,
> but it's only really effective when the name can succinctly describe the
> features and functionality of the library. It's also easier, when those
> features are limited to a few well-known abstractions like FileSystem,
> ProgramOptions, Graph, etc. This arguably isn't the case for Joel's work.
> The breadth of abstractions represented by those libraries (DSELs, Parsing,
> Generating, etc.) aren't necessarily best described by a single term.
Why Boost.Parsing or Boost.Generating are bad? I agree, these names
don't look as fancy as Spirit or Karma, but, personally, I usually care
more about practical matters than exterior fancyness.
> such cases, it's probably better to pick a neutral name (Spirit, for
> example) than to pick one that could be misrepresentative or misleading.
> I think the crux of the problem is not really the name of the library, but
> the ability to associate a library with a task. I think that Joel is right
> that it's a presentation issue.
> The documentation index is just a flat listing of libraries organized
> alphabetically, which is kind of an arbitrary presentation and not
> especially conducive to this kind of task. The category listing is
> substantially more useful in these regards. I would argue for moving this to
> the top-level documentation page or providing a very obvious link to it.
> Perhaps there are even better presentations for the breadth and scope of
> Boost libraries.
I agree that categorized index could help a lot. However, I can't say
that it would allow library names to be completely irrelevant to their
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk