dan marsden wrote:
I'm sure everybody knows what Boost is? Are we considering renaming to "Peer Reviewed Formative C++ Library Collection". Sorry if that's a slightly silly example, but we cope with names such as Google, Boost, Spirit, Qi, Karma etc. every day, it takes very little time to get used to them. The more explicit names aren't always more helpful, renaming Fusion to "heterogeneous container library" would IMO be a backward step for example.
I've already answered this to Joel. I didn't say the name should be more verbose, but it should be descriptive. "Qi", for example, doesn't look descriptive to me.
IMO library authors should be left to pick the names, and Boost should not waste valuable time over analyzing them.
I think, library names are no less important than names of classes and functions they consist of. Library name is the first thing a user knows about the library, and it's a shame when it tells nothing.
The formatting capability is a brand new domain, and therefore it should be extracted as another distinct Boost library. It may build on top of Spirit, it may use the same coding guidelines, but it should a be separately reviewed library in its own directory under boost. I disagree. Karma was never advertized as a top-level Boost Library. It should, IMO.
It is a Spirit sub-library. Parsing and generation are two sides of the same coin. These tasks are the opposite. I don't see why they should be mixed in a single library.
Precisely because, as you say they are opposite (dual) to each other, and so present a good opportunity to address some missing symmetry in previous versions of spirit.
Ok, you and Joel may have a point here, although I'm not entirely convinced.
I personally believe we should lean towards allowing authors creative freedom, even if they do grow the scope of their libraries. It's difficult enough for Boost to recruit sufficient high quality developers to produce libraries the community need.
I'm not against creative freedom at all. What I'm saying are two things: 1. Please, chose more descriptive names for your libraries. 2. Major changes in library functionality should be reviewed.