Stewart, Robert wrote:
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis
On 20-07-2010 12:05, Artyom wrote:
"build" is not good as it some kind of "namespace pollution", and is very problematic for systems with single "bin" path - as most Unix like OSs.
So you need something unique starting with boost prefix as namespace.
For example all mysql utilities start with mysql prefix thus I think boost build should be something like boost_build or boostbld, not really matter, the point is clear.
It is indeed, but I don't actually think I agree... except that "build" is too generic. This command will be typed into a console a hundred times a day in some cases, so it should be rather short. "bjam" was good in this regard, but not really accurate any longer, as Volodya states.
I disagree with your rationale. First, command history is available in all shells, even cmd.exe on Windows, so one isn't likely to type the name hundreds of times per day. Second, there are numerous mechanisms available for shortening a long name when that proves desirable, without imposing a single short name on all.
My suggestion: build_boost. While "boost" isn't a prefix in that name, it reads very nicely in English. Furthermore, if "Boost.Build" remains as a library/project name, then the reversal in "build_boost" is useful to avoid conflation of the two names. That is, the binary isn't the library/project and vice versa, so distinct but related names are useful.
But, "build_boost" sounds like a command that, well, "builds" something called "boost", no? And Boost.Build has significant use to build things that are not "Boost C++ Libraries". - Volodya