Re: Bikeshed discussion on name of library file for Filesystem TS

[Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>]

On 09/24/2014 05:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm going to commit <experimental/filesystem> soon, and as previously
> explained, all the new code is in a separate archive, not in
> libstdc++.so.
>
> I think I called that archive libstdc++fs.a but it might be a good
> idea to discuss better names.
>
> * Should the name have libstdc++ or GNU in it somewhere, to
> distinguish our library from another implementation's? Or would it be
> better if different implementations used the same name, so users'
> makefiles are simpler?
>
> * Should the archive name indicate the TS contents are "experimental"
> (as the namespace and include path already do)?
>
> Some options include:
>
> libstdc++file.a
> libc++file.a
> libg++file.a
> libstdexpfile.a
> libexpfile.a
> libfilec++.a
>
> Or any of the above with "fs" or "filesystem" instead of "file".
>
> Or there's the accurate-but-not-very-exciting name, libts18822.a,
> since the document is ISO/IEC TS 18822.
>
> I'm hoping there's a really good name that I just haven't thought of!
I've been playing with filesystem at it works swimmingly!

I think

libstdc++fs.a
is just fine really.

It indicates that this is part of libstdc++.
It's pithy and memorable.

On the other hand if we think that adding libs for experimental components will be a thing then maybe

libstdc++-exp-fs.a,
libstdc++-exp-net.a

On the other other hand this looks neater to me:

libstdc++fs.a,
libstdc++net.a,
etc.

I guess these would be merged into libstdc++ proper for C++17?

Ed