"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Jeff Flinn" writes:
"Jonathan Turkanis" wrote in message
But speaking of "buf/stream," how about using "buf" and "stream"? E.g.,
I like these the best so far, particularly 'stream'. Thinking about seeing 'buf' appearing in code some time in the future without all of the context in this thread is a little unsettling. Perhaps 'buf' should be un-abbreviated to 'buffer'? Although this fly's in the face of JW's thoughts on the non-buffer nature of streambuf.
Sounds like stream<X> and streambuf<X> might be a good choice.
I'm afraid that readers of library documentation and user code will get boost::iostreams::streambuf and std::streambuf mixed up. Otherwise, it would be my first choice.
No problem; just use qualification. you can also tell people there's a namespace alias in place for boost::iostreams namespace io = boost::iostreams; -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com