Organization of the repo.

So figured I would create a issue to discuss how we want to organize this library of dev tools. Just a place to post suggestions, ideas, questions or whatever you wish.

Anyways my question/suggestion is about a namespace. I assume this project is meant to be kind of a like a boost library that is made by the community at cplusplus.com. So basically a collections of functions, classes, or whatever that developers might find useful.

So I was thinking we should just have a single namespace to have everything under (IE like boost:: or std::). This is just a suggestion but if everyone else agrees with it was wondering what the name should be?

Also another question I had was are we just going to organize the code into folder for each category (IE Threading, Strings, Graphics, ect)? Or something else?

[LB--]

I was expecting this to be a collection of independent small executable tools, but I suppose small libraries could be included too. The idea is that the tools/libraries are small enough that it would not make sense for them to be in their own repo.

Opps sorry about that ;p. Thought this was going to a central "library" for all our code snippets. It probably would be best to just keep this repo for small executables only and I'll make another repo that can be for a central library like I was thinking.

[LB--]

I made a repo for you to work with:
https://github.com/cpluspluscom/dev-snippets

[Lowest0ne]

I was thinking it would be a place for independent executables. Maybe answers for questions that get asked thousands of times at cppreference. Maybe SFML ( or what-have-you ) starter code. I don't know. The spark for this was that I wrote a program to split the chess piece image, and figured anyone who wants to change the image will want to use that program ( instead of editing 12 images ).

I'm going to move that first project into a folder. My opinion would be to wait until the repo starts to get messy before heading towards any set origination.

[LB--]

dev-snippets is for the beginner code that gets written over and over ;)

[Lowest0ne]

Ah.

[Thumperrr]

I think it would make sense to make these dev-tools open source. That is, include the source with the executable so users have the option of compiling it themselves (I'm assuming here that we don't all have the capability to compile a binary for every operating system our users might be using).
Independent executables are fine, except then I want one built for OS x whenever possible, which is hard to do without a mac.

[Thumperrr]

Woops, didn't mean to close the issue there.

[LB--]

@Thumperrr: executables and other binaries are not allowed in this repository! So, there's no issue here :)

[Thumperrr]

I was expecting this to be a collection of independent small executable tools

Maybe I misunderstood that? It looked like it implied that it would be the executables that were included, not the source. That works then.