Scott McMurray wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 21:53, Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Thank you, Andrew. That is a very good and effective explanation. I am not against "descriptive" names. It can be good, especially for small, specific libraries, in some cases, as small as a single class, surrounded perhaps by a few support classes. That is not the case for Spirit.
For Spirit as a whole I agree, since I'm not convinced a perfect descriptive name exists, but I fail to see the harm in something simple like Spirit.Parse, Spirit.Grammar, and Spirit.Print.
Good points!
One could also argue that, in general, not being able to find a good name is indicative of broad purpose (like Boost) rather than specific functionality (as a Boost library ought to be). I won't say that it necessarily applies in this case, as my gut likes the grouping of the 3 functionalities, but I do think it's a valid twist to Andrew's comments.
Indeed. Spirit is not a single library since day one when it became a Boost citizen. It's more of a project than a single library.
Still not concerned by the naming,
Ditto. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net