Re: [boost] [review][Fit] Review of Fit starts today : September 8 - September 17

On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 12:10 +0200, Hans Dembinski via Boost wrote:

...

On 15. Sep 2017, at 20:45, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

I don't like names like Fit which give no helpful information.  But I've lost that battle before so I won't belabor this any more.

I would like to join the chorus of people who don't like the name "Fit". Please - please - consider changing this.

"Fit", what does it mean? Is it an acronym (perhaps for function interface toolkit??)?

I was going for function utility library, which makes FUL, and I didnt like that acronym(although it is the first three letters of my name) as it could sound big and bloated. So I went with Fit, because it sounds much "healthier", and I thought I could backronym it at some point. 

Was the library written in a "fit" of rage over the lack of proper tools? Is the library in particular good health, perhaps? The documentation does not tell us, but even if it would, a longer, more descriptive name would be helpful.

In my personal professional context, a "fit" refers to code that adapts a statistical model to stochastic data by minimising a cost function, which somehow measures the closeness of the model and the data. Googling "c++ fit library" yields links to Boost.Fit, but the first other hits are related to such optimisation libraries (this is not because of my personal Google search bubble, I used a private browser session). This as another hint that the name "Fit" is misleading.

If I may suggest a name: I like description on github "function utility library". So what about "Function Utilities", which is quite descriptive. On the Boost library page it would be inserted next to "Function" and "Function Types", which - ironically - seems quite "fit"ting.

But if I use the FunctionUtilities, I would find calling `boost::function_utilities::pipable` or `BOOST_FUNCTION_UTILITIES_STATIC_FUNCTION` to be just too long.  I think HigherOrderFunctions is much more descriptive, and then I could use the namespace `hof` for short. Also, the word 'utility' is not very descriptive, and I would prefer to move away from using it. Boost.Utility contains random things in it that are unrelated, and I don't want this library to be described as a collection of random and unrelated functions.