On 02/10/2010 12:51 AM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 02/09/2010 11:45 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
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?
We discussed that. It can mean, "designed at the behest of," just as easily as it can mean, "designed for possible inclusion in."
One of my concerns is that any logo put in a library's documentation should be acceptable even if the library is never submitted or is rejected and then developed outside of Boost. I don't think we should rely on the author of a rejected library taking positive action to "correct" the logo in that case. "For use with" is sufficiently innocuous as to not overstate the relationship in that case, or so we thought.
Given that concern, please suggest a better alternative if you can think of one.
"unofficial extension (addon) for [boost]"? "for extension of [boost]"? "complement for [boost]"? "addition (addendum) to [boost]"? I hope guys with native English might come up with a few more wordings.
A few more, quite far-fetched though: "designed after [boost]", "combines with [boost]", "extends [boost]", "in line with [boost]", "bases on [boost]".