Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit

Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-05 11:18:41

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:41:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Marcin wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2016 12:46 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: 
> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> From: Boost [mailto:boost-..._at_[hidden] <javascript:>] On Behalf 
> Of Paul Fultz II 
> >> Sent: 02 March 2016 17:10 
> >> To: Boost devel archive 
> >> Cc: bo..._at_[hidden] <javascript:> 
> >> Subject: Re: [boost] Alternative names to Boost.Fit 
> >> Alternatively, I wonder if its possible to use FunctionUtilities as the 
> >> library name, but use 'fu' as the namespace name. 
> > 
> > I don't think that there is any real need to make the Boost library name 
> the same as the namespace name. 
> > 
> > I believe the library name should be description - clear not curt (and 
> not cute either ;-). 
> > 
> > Nor is there any need to make the namespace name too short IMO. 
> > 
> > If code has lots of repeated references to the namespace (unlikely?) 
> > 
> > then a using funcutil::some_fun; or even using namespace funcutil; 
> within local scope (not global scope of course). 
> > 
> > So I'd suggest Boost.FunctionUtilities and namespace funcutil; 
> > 
> > But it's your call (until you get shouted down ;-) 
> > 
>
> My first impressions if I saw the names: 
>
> boost::fit - no idea, something with forward iterators maybe? 
> boost::futils - file utilities? 
> boost::funcutil - deals with function or functional utilities? 
>
> My first impression of funcutil seems to be in line with the description 
> of the library from the OP so that'd be my vote of the names suggested 
> thus far. 
>

However, I dont like the name funcutil at all. What about if you see the 
name Boost.Fn?