From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-05 20:06:36
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 07:02 AM 11/4/2003, John Maddock wrote:
> >> > As per our discussion could we remove this lib prefix? Who should
> >agree?
> >>
> >> We need something to differentiate between static libraries and dll
> >import
> >> libraries, I suppose a "static_" prefix would actually be my
> preference.
> >> One thing though - it is *extremely* painful to change and then
> test this
> >> (as well as modifying and testing the header, I have a lot of regex
> >> makefiles that also have to change, and then be tested with every
> >possible
> >> build variant you can imagine :-( ), changing the name of the prefix
> >> wouldn't be too bad for me though if that's really desirable. To be
> >honest
> >> I'm not too unhappy with the current "lib" prefix though.
> >
> >And on second thoughts I'm not sure it's possible the remove the "lib"
> >prefix if we also want to ensure a consistent naming scheme across
> Unix and
> >Windows platforms.
>
> Is consistent naming across platforms important? I would have thought
> naming consistent with the platform's usual conventions would be more
> important.
That is the question. How should we choose one over the other?
[repeating info already posted: The usual conventions for Windows
don't work for at least some Windows compilers (Cygwin GCC).]
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com