29 Jul
2012
29 Jul
'12
10:36 p.m.
On 7/29/2012 3:29 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
I strongly encourage you to consider the name Boost.ValueInterface or something more descriptive of the anticipated *usage* of your library, rather than how it's implemented.
Hit send too soon, sorry. Your library can also be thought of as adding structural typing or duck typing to C++, so: - Boost.(Structural|Duck)(Types|Interface(s)?)? would all be fine, descriptive names for the library, IMO. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com