On 16 May 2014 at 20:23, Stephen Kelly wrote:
8. Reusable utilities in a submitted library need merging into some common utilities library which follows the STL conventions. Other than that, no source code, naming conventions, namespace or anything else needs converting or changing.
I do think there is a lot to be said for consistency in naming and API (and documentation, as you wrote :) ).
Thing is, it's a royal PITA to convert over for an existing codebase. Just asking for the docs to be converted is a big ask. Besides, unless it's intended for the STL eventually, copying STL naming conventions isn't as important as excellent code coverage, testing, docs etc.
Thoughts?
Part of the value of Boost v1 currently is branding. Any group of developers could create 'a set of modern-idiomatic c++ libraries', with some equivalence to some Boost libraries (or as a fork of them), appealing to the modern needs that arise when you already have C++11/14 as a base.
However, Boost has a greater chance than any other group of creating something credible and that the rest of the C++ community can get behind, partly because of expertise, but also partly because of branding. So, make sure such a v2 fork is called 'Boost' or is definitively 'the son of Boost' to keep that. I'm still not certain about how the Boost community operates and makes decisions (partly consensus, partly not), but I suspect there's some work to do there to get people on-board with something like this.
I completely agree. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/