----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:42 AM Subject: [boost] Re: Naming Proposed Libraries
David Abrahams wrote:
When discussing libraries in public that are under development but not yet accepted into Boost, I think it's problematic to refer to "The Boost <whatever> library" or "Boost.<whatever>" without qualification. Our peer-review process is respected, and these libraries are not yet officially blessed by Boost. I don't want to dilute the value of Boost acceptance. Can we please make a habit of prepending "The proposed" or something similar? For example, I suggest "The proposed Boost Interfaces library.
I understand the problem. With the interfaces library, the documentation contains a prominent disclaimer, and so does every source file.
I can't think of anything better right now, but to me "proposed" suggests that the libray is in the review queue.
Thanks!
I have been definitely guilty of being careless in this regards to referencing proposed libraries in public, and I will be more careful in the future. I assume though that this mailing list itself is not sufficiently "public" to warrant the more verbose naming? I think the BIL is as clear in its documentation as can be reasonably expected. Whether or not a library is in a review queue is not really a significant concern is it, as it doesn't take any special requirements to get into the queue? Christopher Diggins Object Oriented Template Library (OOTL) http://www.ootl.org