Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boostlibraries
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-16 08:28:02
On May 16, 2015 2:46:29 AM MDT, Michael Ainsworth <michael_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 16 May 2015, at 1:21 pm, "charleyb123 ." <charleyb123_at_[hidden]>
> > Michael Ainsworth spaketh:
> >> <snip>,
> >> On a related topic, there are a number of libraries that haven't
> >> 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.
Authors of proposed libraries are supposed to add disclaimers that the libraries haven't been accepted and use a special logo in their documentation. References to them should always be just the library name, without "Boost", or the "proposed Boost library X".
We do not require a special namespace, but that's not a bad idea.
> > I think this is a very good idea -- reserving the "Boost" name for
> > libraries actually accepted to Boost.
> How enforceable is this?
We will check with the Software Freedom Conservancy on that.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk