Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
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.
Yes it's clear.. But so is what I would think most people would write if they did not use the Boost label: "I'm working to make Interfaces Library easier to use" So even though I agree that using just "Name" is not effectual.. I also don't think removing "Boost" deprives anyone of accurately communicating what they are talking about. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq