Re: [boost] [context] boost::ctx::?

Subject: Re: [boost] [context] boost::ctx::?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-14 17:05:23

Le 14/09/12 22:22, Beman Dawes a écrit :
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 9/14/2012 10:42 AM, Greg Rubino wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ctx seems like a needlessly short abbreviation.  Wouldn't it be better
>>>> and more consistent with the rest of Boost to ask users to write
>>>>
>>>>     using namespace ctx = boost::context;
>>>>
>>>> if they want something short?
>>>>
>>> I was thinking the same thing actually.  +1
>>>
>>> AFAICT, it seems like the general convention is that if the name of the
>>> library is Boost.Beetlejuice, then the namespace will be
>>> boost::beetlejuice.  The word 'context' isn't really long enough to justify
>>> breaking that tradition IMO.
>> Amazingly, we actually have a published convention for these things. :-)
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html
>>
>> 'The library is given a name that describes the contents of the library.
>> Cryptic abbreviations are strongly discouraged. Following the practice
>> of the C++ Standard Library, names are usually singular rather than
>> plural. For example, a library dealing with file systems might chose the
>> name "filesystem", but not "filesystems", "fs" or "nicecode".'
>>
>> It goes on to say that if there is a class or function of the same name
>> as the library (boost::tuple), the name should be pluralized (e.g.
>> boost::tuples::tuple, but tuple isn't in it's own namespace so it's moot
>> in this case).
>>
>> So, if there already is a component boost::ctx::context, or if you would
>> like to leave that door open, the namespace should be "boost::contexts".
>> Otherwise, the namespace should be "boost::context", IMO.
> +1
>
>
If the namespace is changed, I will prefer that the name convey the 
functionality behind the context class. We can have a lot of context.
The functionality is close to a continuation context, but I don't know 
if it implements it completely, so maybe continuation could be considered.

Best,
Vicente