Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-09 17:11:04
On 02/10/2010 12:51 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant,
>>> too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for
>>> inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed
>>> it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?
>> We discussed that. It can mean, "designed at the behest of," just as
>> easily as it can mean, "designed for possible inclusion in."
>> One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation
>> should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is
>> rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we
>> should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive
>> action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is
>> sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that
>> case, or so we thought.
>> Given that concern, please suggest a better alternative if you can
>> think of one.
> "unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"?
> "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I hope guys
> with native English might come up with a few more wordings.
A few more, quite far-fetched though:
"designed after [boost]", "combines with [boost]", "extends [boost]",
"in line with [boost]", "bases on [boost]".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk