Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
I understand the problem. With the interfaces library, the documentation contains a prominent disclaimer, and so does every source file.
That's a terrific approach, but it does mean you have to remember to remove the disclaimers when the library enters the review queue.
I think keeping the disclaimer until acceptance would be better. With the iostreams library removing the disclaimer from the source files just took just a few seconds; removing it from HTML documents was a little harder so I stopped putting disclaimers on each documentation file.
I can't think of anything better right now, but to me "proposed" suggests that the libray is in the review queue.
Agreed.
How about just omitting "Boost?" At this point, the "Boost Interfaces Library" is just the "Turkanis Interfaces Library"
Uncle Jonathan's Home-Style Interface Library?
or the "Interfaces Library," right? IOW, make it wrong to modify a library name with "Boost" until it has been accepted (though the documentation can be written as if it had been accepted, with disclaimers initially).
I think having a name which sounds good is important for a library, even in the early stages. Also, changing the name after the library has acquired a significant body of users, or after articles have been written about it, is confusing and may slow the libraries adoption by more users. In the case at hand, I believe "Interfaces Library" is a lousy name. If I were naming the library with no though to its possible future acceptance into boost, I might call it "C++ with Interfaces" (the name of Christopher's article). If it were eventually accepted into Boost, I'd change the name to Boost.Interfaces, but the de facto name, at least for a while, would be "Boost.Interfaces (formerly C++ with Interfaces)." To sum up, I prefer Dave's original suggestion, the "[proposed/contemplated/suggested] Boost Interfaces Library". Jonathan