"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
Hi,
In the months leading up to the publication of Dave's and Aleksey's TMP book, there was a discussion of the proper form for referring to Boost libraries in published material.
I'm writing about Boost.Build, and I'm planning to refer to it as Boost.Build most of the time. My question is: if I refer to Boost.Build as "the Boost build system," is this a proper name or a description? How should it be capitalized?
I guess the most consistent thing would be to capitalize "Build" and leave the rest as you have written it.
Really? To me it seems a bit odd to treat the works "build" and "system" differently, when they are both components on the term "build system."
The standard for libraries is, e.g. "the Boost Bind library."
My instinct would have been to use either "Boost Build System" or "Boost build system."
When you mention consistency, do you mean consistency with the usage "Boost Xxxx library," in which "Boost" and the library name are capitalized but the word "library" isn't? To me the parallel doesn't seem very strong.
No, not very strong, but it's more consistent. Once you start calling the system "Boost.Build," the connection between "build" and "system" becomes a lot weaker and "Boost Build system" seems to make more sense.
At any rate, I don't have a strong preference, and I'm happy to use whatever you think is best.
I don't have a strong preference either; the convention I cited is the only one I can come up with rationale for. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com