At 11:37 AM 2/27/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:

Markus Werle said:

...

A hard burden You lay on developers.

It's not a burden.

...

So maybe the code has to be piped through a code de-beautifier when it comes to a boostification.

That's a bit harsh. If *you* don't care for the style, you're welcome to that opinion, but voicing it in this manner isn't going to help anyone to agree with you.

...

IMHO (UsingThisConventionHere == CommonPracticeElsewhere)

It's not common practice everywhere (I know of as many places that follow the C++ standard naming conventions as those that follow what I'll call "Java" naming conventions). But the important thing is that the whole point of Boost is to be a test bed and development area for libraries

that

*might* be considered for inclusion in the standard. As such, we have to follow the standard naming conventions.

Exactly. And it isn't just a theoretical "*might* be considered for inclusion in the standard". A bunch of the Boost libraries *are* under consideration by the Standards Committee right now, and more will be in the future. For a library to be considered seriously for standardization, it helps a great deal if every aspect, including names, has been subject to prior use. That flushes out issues that otherwise would be hidden. So there is little chance Boost will change naming conventions. I suppose we might accept a library which used a different set of conventions if there was some special rationale. But I can't imagine what that rationale would be. It certainly would not be just that a developer prefers another convention. --Beman