Andrey Semashev wrote:
Obviously, having a simple, denotative name for a library is a good thing, but it's only really effective when the name can succinctly describe the features and functionality of the library. It's also easier, when those features are limited to a few well-known abstractions like FileSystem, ProgramOptions, Graph, etc. This arguably isn't the case for Joel's work. The breadth of abstractions represented by those libraries (DSELs, Parsing, Generating, etc.) aren't necessarily best described by a single term.
Why Boost.Parsing or Boost.Generating are bad? I agree, these names don't look as fancy as Spirit or Karma, but, personally, I usually care more about practical matters than exterior fancyness.
They are not bad. But they are not good either. Doug (Gregor) intuited long ago that Spirit can host several parsing methods in addition to recursive descent. Ok, let me try to be more constructive: 1) The name Spirit cannot be changed. Doing so at this time will cause more damage than the "advantage" you claim (for which I am not convinced). 2) There's only one compelling reason I've heard so far, and that is from Dave (A): "if there are 4-5 sublibraries that also have non-mnemonic names, it does start to look pretty confusing." I am open to changing the names "Qi" and "Karma" to something non-abstract. The names: Spirit.RD and spirit.Gen come to mind. Spirit.Parsing is not a good name because there can be a Spirit.LL1, Spirit.LR, Spirit.Packrat. I am open to suggestions. At any rate, I'd want to reserve the right to choosing the names. Whether or not these new features, when they finally arrive, should be subject to a review, depends on what the rules are at that time. Right now, I stand by the current rules: A library can be extended without further review.
I agree that categorized index could help a lot. However, I can't say that it would allow library names to be completely irrelevant to their purpose.
I am not against non-abstract library names. No, they are not irrelevant. I'm just not inclined to put too much emphasis on them. One must not judge a library by its name. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net