Rene Rivera wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
"me22" <me22.ca@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fa28b9250605310817l2d71b783j9e92bd247619d313@mail.gmail.com...
On 5/31/06, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote: ... I think the names for the types might be a little bit too cute. "bin" makes me think binary, not signed big-endian. That being said, I'm not sure I have any good name that isn't far too verbose. unsigned_littleendian_aligned<4> is admittedly starting to push convenience, though bigendian<5> isn't too bad.
I'm often amazed at the clever names Boosters suggest, so I think it is worthwhile to speculate a bit about better names. But the everyday use typedefs really do need to be short and memorable. I've been using the "bin2", "bun3", etc. since 1984 or so, with several hundred programmers now using them all the time, and never had a request to change the names.
Since name suggestions are up... My main problem with the bin*, bun* names is that you have to train yourself to know what they mean. It might be easy after a while but they don't say anything to me initially (even with the explanatory chart). My suggestion would be to stick close to the existing cstdint types:
int_be8_t int_le8_t uint_be8_t uint_le8_t
etc.
Of course that means using bit sizes instead of byte sizes. But I find the bit sizes more natural anyway :-)
This convention occured to me as well, as I was reading through the thread. Needless to say I like this naming convention, add another vote. Jeff Flinn