Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> wrote
So, the question remains: Is "Boost Candidate.Name" instead of "Boost.Name" a good idea in message traffic prior to acceptance?
What about just "Name" ?
It may not be clear from "Name" that it represents a library (e.g. "FSM"); or it may not be clear which library is intended (e.g. "iostreams" or "algorithms" could refer to a boost library or a standard library). Libraries with disctinctive names, such as Spirit, don't have this problems. But consider the candidate Boost Interfaces library (which started this discussion). If I write: "I'm working to make Interfaces easier to use" many people might have no idea that I'm talking about a specific library under development. But if I say "I'm working to make the candidate Boost Interfaces library easier to use" it's perfectly clear. Jonathan