9 Feb
2010
9 Feb
'10
8:13 p.m.
On 02/09/2010 04:47 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Please suggest an alternative. We tried numerous *short* phrases and settled on "for use with" as being the most broadly applicable to non-accepted libraries. If you have a better idea that fits well in the logo space available, please share it. We've found that two lines of text can fit nicely in the space we've used, but the two lines must be aesthetically balanced.
I must say I'm not quite happy with the "for use with" variant, too. It just doesn't quite fit for a library being proposed for inclusion into Boost (at any stage of proposal). I may have missed it, but why e.g. "designed for" was not accepted?