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

Subject: Re: [boost] [context] boost::ctx::?
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-14 17:23:55

Am 14.09.2012 23:05, schrieb Vicente J. Botet Escriba:
> 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.
'continuation' would be longer than 'context' - is a short namespace not 
preferable?
The same applies to 'coroutines' - I would prefer 'coro'.

Oliver

Oliver