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
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).
> 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
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
I could support ZLang 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk