From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
where <I>Name</I> is the full name of the library. Libraries that are candidates for inclusion in Boost, whether at the conceptual stage or in the review queue, can be referenced without the <I>Boost</I> modifier or with the addition of <I>Candidate, </I>as in <I>Boost Candidate.Name</I>
Seems contorted. What's wrong with
Boost.Name candidate
or
candidate Boost.Name
I was trying to ensure "Boost" wasn't connected too closely. With your version, "Boost.Name" still stands out since they are juxtaposed and capitalized. I was trying to make "Boost Candidate" akin to "Boost" in modifying a library name.
Well, my intention is to make things clear, but not to make people write/speak unnaturally. I don't want to be heavyhanded about this. I would like to see one other person agree with you that it's a good idea before including it in the document.
I've heard from no one for or against my ideas, or yours for that matter. Does anyone have an opinion on how this should be codified? What do you think should be the official naming convention?
And why are you capitalizing "candidate?"
Because I was making the name "Boost Candidate.Name" rather than "Boost.Name." It could be "Boost.Candidate.Name," too.
or <I>The Candidate Boost Name Library</I>.
That's fine.
But, if I follow your comments from above, neither "The" nor "Library" should be capitalized, right?
Right
Then, there's still the question of whether "Candidate" should be capitalized.
Well, if anyone buys into your version with the dot that puts "candidate" in the middle, you can capitalize it in that context as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, it's just an adjective and should be lowercase.
So, the question remains: Is "Boost Candidate.Name" instead of "Boost.Name" a good idea in message traffic prior to acceptance? (For that matter, Boost.Book and QuickBook could be modified to generate such names automatically, with a switch that indicates that a library has not yet been accepted.) If you don't like that, do you think "candidate Boost.Name" is good enough? My concern is that "candidate," being lower case, will pale next to "Boost.Name" and so lose its value. There's also the question of whether "candidate" is the right word. One could make a case for "proposed," "tentative," and other words. Is there any reason to have a different modifier for libraries in the review queue as compared to those simply under development with aspirations to be reviewed? For example, the former case could readily use "candidate" or "proposed," whereas the latter is not properly a Boost candidate, since it hasn't yet been proposed for review, and so might better be described as "potential." Dave has made the case for not requiring name changes in documentation. If it can be done easily enough via Boost.Book and QuickBook, I think it is reasonable to expect it in documentation generated with those tools. However, since the use of those tools is not required, then it would be simplest and most consistent to simply state that documentation need not alter Boost.Name. Let me know what you think should be our naming requirements. Once we reach consensus, I'll create a diff for more/discussion_policy.htm to capture them. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;