"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
- The dot convention is useful, as long as it can be applied to all boost libraries. Currently it works only with those with one-word names or which have standard nicknames or abbreviations:
Boost.SmartPtr Boost.Regex Boost.Type Traits // Looks funny,
Looks okay to me.
Boost.Greatest Common Divisor Least Common Multiple // ???
That looks funny even without the dot. The library name is too long.
If the dotted versions of Boost library names will be appearing in books with some frequency, all libraries with multi-word names must be given some official abbreviation. E.g., Greatest Common Divisor Least Common Multiple could be 'Boost.GCD,' Boost.Gcd', 'Boost.GcdLcm' or something else.
For these libraries, that's probably a good idea anyway. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com