Andrey Semashev wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote: Look, I'm not arguing that the library name is everything you need to know about the library. I'm just saying that informative names really do help to find what you need.
How about Boost.Any? For the uninitiated, that could contain smart pointers. I look at the current names. Only a very few give me the enough information to know what they are for. What is assign? What is enable_if? What is parameter? asio? ref? variant? mpl? units? optional? etc. I wouldn't know by just the names!
Some of them are quite telling (iostreams, variant, filesystem, datetime, threads, function, program_options, serialization, should I go on?). At least, more telling than Qi. And I repeat myself, the name does give a hint on the library purpose, and I find it useful.
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convince me in. Is it that library names are irrelevant to their domain? Well, we could name libraries like GUIDs, at least we would have world-wide unique names. Do you think it would make life easier for users? Seriously, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.
What I am trying to say is that the so-called "descriptive names" are not always that descriptive either. Without real descriptions, an uninitiated boost user can never tell what some of the names listed above mean. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net