Here's a thought building from previous suggestion. We could say
Boost.Thread without using a definite article or the word library .
Using a dot instead of a colon causes it to not feel like C++ syntax, since
a dot is widely used as a separator, whereas colons are more C++ specific
(but not completely, of course). Sample text would be:

This document describes Boost.Python. Boost.Python can access Python
libraries. For details on how to call into Python from multiple threads,
see the Python thread module and Boost.Thread.

One may choose to reinforce (on a one-time-basis) that Boost.Python is a
library by replacing the first sentence of the example with: This document
describes the library Boost.Python.

----- Original Message -----
From: <williamkempf@[...]..> 
To: <boost@[...].com> 
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: [boost] TLAs (was Re: Review: Boost Test Library)


>  --- In boost@[...].. , Ronald Garcia <rgarcia4@[...]..> wrote:
>  >
>  > rather than using three or four letter acronyms, couldn't the
>  > libraries be referred to as boost::python , or boost::thread .
>  > perhaps that's not short enough, or the idea of having colons in the
>  > name could be problematic (do search engines have problems with
>  > colons?) if not less than aesthetically pleasing. Just a thought.
> 
>  I had actually considered using B::TL or B:TL to avoid clashes with
>  outside libraries. This still leaves us with (possible) clashes
>  internally, but it's better. Your suggestion is a good alternative,
>  though it seems to convey a C++ namespace that doesn't exist.
> 
>  Bill Kempf
> 
> 
> 
>