Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
At the risk of discussing the bicycle shed, what about using the scope resolution operator? That, at least, would not be misconstrued by a copyeditor and would be in keeping with C++ syntax.
IMO it's very important to distinguish those things that are supposed to have meaning in code from those that are not. Using strongly C++-like syntax here would be confusing, since these things are not identifiers.
Isn't that an argument against using the dot, too?
Yes. Set in roman type and with caps on the library name it is less confusable and more like a Boost-trademark typographical convention, but yes it's still confusable. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com