Re: [boost] Futures (was: Re: [compute] Some remarks)

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures (was: Re: [compute] Some remarks)
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-13 12:31:43

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Niall Douglas
<s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2015 at 20:24, Rob Stewart wrote:
>
>> > I do agree about BindLib being a poor name. It is actually onto its
>> > third choice of name now :( but to date, it's the least terrible of
>> > the reasonably descriptive library names I have thought of.
>> >
>> > Any better names gratefully received.
>>
>> Name[space]Mapping
>
> NameMappingLib or just plain NameMapping?
>
> How about APIMapping? BindLib also provides API version management
> via preprocessor metaprogramming.
>
> Would even APIBind be better?
>
> Niall
>
> --
> ned Productions Limited Consulting
> http://www.nedproductions.biz/
> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
>
>

I like APIBind.  Any of the above are good.

Anything from { API, Name, Lib } X { Bind, Mapping }

Boost.Using is too generic.

Tony