Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-04 13:33:54
Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> No opinion on that, but I've got another suggestion: Boost.Interface.
>> The name comes back from an abandoned lib proposal by Jonathan Turkanis:
>> which revolves around duck typing (though with a different approach
>> than Steve's lib.) "Interface" is (surprisingly) a not much overloaded
>> word in C++.
>It's also a well-understood word in the OO community, meaning roughly the right thing.
>I guess one question is whether we'd want to sully the whole "concept-based polymorphism" flavor with OO terminology ;-)
So is that a +0.5?
I like the name because it is sufficiently general to capture the scope of the library. This name should help answer the " what this library is for, what is the motivation?" question Neil raised. It is a library for defining interfaces. Generic interfaces kind of goes without saying since it is a boost library.
I wouldn't tend to jump to the OO-specific definition of Interface when I see it as the name of a boost library, since it is one of the most general programming terms. Boost.Algorithm, Boost.Interface, Boost.Parameter. It seems to fit right in there.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk