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."
Thanks!
P.S. I hope it's obvious, but I don't think the documentation for the proposed library ought to resort to such contortions.
FWIW, it would probably be trivial to support this distinction in QuickBook. One possibility would be adding a "doc_approval_date" member to the grammar, so that whenever "doc_approval_date" is left unspecified QuickBook can add a variety of consistent indications that the library is still at the "proposed" stage. We could even support generating "beta" versions of the docs with such warnings disabled... And this wouldn't require any contortions on the part of the proposed library's author (presuming, of course, that they are using QuickBook for documentation ;) )! - james -- __________________________________________________________ James Fowler, Open Sea Consulting http://www.OpenSeaConsulting.com, Marietta, Georgia, USA Do C++ Right. http://www.OpenCpp.org, opening soon!