christopher diggins <cdiggins@videotron.ca> writes:
----- 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?
Quite the contrary IMO, though it's even more important in fora outside this one.
I think the BIL is as clear in its documentation as can be reasonably expected.
As I tried to indicate, I am *not* particularly concerned about the library docs and source, though it's nice if they disclaim. I'm concerned with the perception engendered by casual conversation.
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?
Not a significant concern for me. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com