Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-03 22:09:05
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 21:53, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thank you, Andrew. That is a very good and effective explanation.
> I am not against "descriptive" names. It can be good, especially
> for small, specific libraries, in some cases, as small as a single
> class, surrounded perhaps by a few support classes. That is not
> the case for Spirit.
For Spirit as a whole I agree, since I'm not convinced a perfect
descriptive name exists, but I fail to see the harm in something
simple like Spirit.Parse, Spirit.Grammar, and Spirit.Print.
One could also argue that, in general, not being able to find a good
name is indicative of broad purpose (like Boost) rather than specific
functionality (as a Boost library ought to be). I won't say that it
necessarily applies in this case, as my gut likes the grouping of the
3 functionalities, but I do think it's a valid twist to Andrew's
Still not concerned by the naming,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk