Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.aau.dk>
Jonathan Turkanis <technews <at> kangaroologic.com> writes:
sure that the analogy with the iterators library will be very effective in helping users understand these templates. As a result, I'm think of using the less technical-sounding names "generic_streambuf" and "generic_stream."
What do people think?
seems ok. have you considered
Hmmm. I agree that the original names are misleading. They don't create a facade over another class, they are provide the functionality directly. However, "generic_streambuf" sounds too, well, generic.
Meaning the names are pretty dull? Thats true. I guess I could call them platinum_stream and platinum_streambuf ;-)
basic_streambuf<> basic_stream<>
as an analogy with regex/string etc ?
As compared to std::basic_istream et al, these classes are hardly what one would call basic. They push the concepts far forward. Thus, should these classes be standardized, std::basic_stream doesn't stand apart from the other class templates.
I agree. And basic_streambuf is already used by the standard. I'd rather not declare a type in a boost namespace with the same unqualified name as a type in namespace std, unless the type is recommended as a replacement for the standard type. For example, I define a template boost::iostreams::char_traits which is like std::char_traits except it supports would_block in addition to eof.
Furthermore, they aren't specialized on the character type as those other templates are, so they deserve different names.
Is there are reason not to call them simply "stream" and "streambuf?"
I like these, except that streambuf is a typedef in namespace std for basic_streambuf<char>.
If you're concerned about the possibility of typedefs or other uses of those names in either the std or boost namespace, then how about "policy_stream" and "policy_streambuf?"
These are very good, but I've tenatively decided to downplay the policy-based aspect of the design. I know at least one person who was turned off by the description of the library as involving policies. While I disagree with his view, and I hope he is not representive of users in general, his reaction made me realize that calling the library policy-based doesn't really add much. Still, I like these names, and will think about using them.
I'm thinking of renaming the headers that are curently based on component names so that all headers will have short, simple names. E.g.,
bzip2.hpp counter.hpp gzip.hpp line.hpp newline.hpp one_step.hpp regex.hpp stdio.hpp symmetric.hpp test.hpp zlib.hpp
Thoughts?
I like you renaming.
Seems reasonable given that they are already in the filter subdirectory.
Okay, thanks. Jonathan