Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
Well, my intention is to make things clear, but not to make people write/speak unnaturally. I don't want to be heavyhanded about this. I would like to see one other person agree with you that it's a good idea before including it in the document.
I've heard from no one for or against my ideas, or yours for that matter. Does anyone have an opinion on how this should be codified? What do you think should be the official naming convention?
I don't have an opinion; I don't think we need an official naming convention. I just want people to distinguish accepted from proposed libraries in their speaking and writing. No need to make a big production of it.
It seems I took the ideas of the original discussion too far. The consensus seems to be that folks just want to make sure a library isn't named as if it's part of Boost, but they don't care too much how that's done.
Let me know what you think should be our naming requirements. Once we reach consensus, I'll create a diff for more/discussion_policy.htm to capture them.
The requirements should be "distinguish accepted boost libraries from things someone hopes will be in Boost, someday." Beyond that, I don't care.
Here's my take, then: _____________________________________________________ Library Names
Please avoid confusion between libraries that have been accepted by Boost and those that have not. Here are some suggested approaches to accomplish that (the first one is probably your best choice):
* the LibName library * the proposed Boost.LibName library * the candidate Boost.LibName library * the your adjective here Boost.LibName library
Note that this naming only applies to discussions, not to the documentation, directory structure, or even identifiers in the code.
It was a good start. I mangled it (sorry ;->) and then checked in / uploaded. Hope you like my changes. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com