In message <96ji2m+ipd2@[...]..> , williamkempf@[...].. writes
> The names are fine, but we still have the question of whether or not
> we should be using acronyms. With Boost in the name it's nearly
> impossible for us to conflict with other library names, but the
> acronyms are much more likely to collide with other acronyms already
> in use. Even if this doesn't pose possible legal problems (does it?)
> it does make it more likely that the acronym will just confuse
> readers/users of the libraries. The only compelling reason to keep
> them, as David Abrahams points out, is that the titles of the
> libraries are quite long and cumbersome for use in documentation and
> conversation.

I was never aware that we had a problem as serious as you make out, and
remain unconvinced that we have. I had only considered the abbreviations
to be a short-hand convenience for the full name rather than a
replacement. In that sense, we should use them in docs as we would any
other abbreviation (AOA), so that when we use AOA it is quite clear from
the context.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

Kevlin Henney phone: +44 117 942 2990
Curbralan Limited mobile: +44 7801 073 508
mailto: kevlin@[...].. fax: +44 870 052 2289
 http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________