Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit

Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-02 12:09:44

>
> I'm not sure what the "N" in "FN" is, so I don't see that as a good 
> choice.  

A lot of times people abbreviate function as fn.
 

> >Names like Boost.FP or Boost.FPL 
> >could imply that it provides full functional constructs whereas 
> >Boost.Fit does not 
> >and is mainly focused on functions. 
>
> I agree that those are not good. 
>
> Boost.Fun would be a fun name and arguably fits (pun intended). 
>

True.
 

>
> Boost.Futil :-) 
>
> The name doesn't actually need to be short, so Boost.Function Utilities 
> would be fine. The corresponding namespace name would be long, too, but 
> namespace aliases, using directives, and using declarations can mitigate 
> that. 
>

However, there is not an easy way alias the macros. So
`BOOST_FIT_STATIC_LAMBDA_FUNCTION` would become
`BOOST_FUNCTION_UTILITIES_STATIC_LAMBDA_FUNCTION`, which is getting too 
long.
I could support ZLang[1] to allow the user to namespace macros, however, I
don't think that is widely used.

Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the
library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name.

Paul

[1]: https://github.com/pfultz2/ZLang