Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Michael Ainsworth (michael_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-16 04:46:29
> On 16 May 2015, at 1:21 pm, "charleyb123 ." <charleyb123_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Ainsworth spaketh:
>> On a related topic, there are a number of libraries that haven't been
>> accepted into Boost which have Boost in their name, (perhaps
>> unintentionally) implying that they have been accepted. It'd be good if the
>> Boost community made a ruling that future library submissions include in
>> their name (and C++ namespaces) "Booster"/"Boostable"/some-other-variant, so
>> as to indicate it's "not yet official" status. Once accepted, a simple find
>> and replace would be required to reflect the status change.
> I think this is a very good idea -- reserving the "Boost" name for
> libraries actually accepted to Boost.
How enforceable is this?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk