--- In boost@[...].. , Kevlin Henney <kevlin@[...]..>  wrote:
>  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.

Well, it's others that make out that the problem is serious. The
problem with abreviations, TLAs in particular, is that they are very
likely to clash. This topic began because I used the TLA BTL to
refer to a post about the Boost Thread Library and someone pointed
out that the recently submitted Boost Test Library has the same TLA.

My only concerns about using TLAs are:

1) Within Boost they may clash and this will lead to very great
confusion.
2) Outside of Boost they may also clash, which may lead to some
confusion for a smaller audience and possibly may be a trademark
infringement(?).

Personally, I don't care too much about this issue for the upcoming
Boost Thread Library, other than if some decision is made that will
effect the documentation I'd like to know sooner than later. So
how big the problem is doesn't matter much to me.

Bill Kempf