Matt Gruenke wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
I guess our documentation was not very clear... The only aspects that GIL color spaces combine are the ordering and the name of the channels. Maybe using Fernando's suggestion things will be clearer - instead of color spaces, think of them as "pixel formats".
Ouch. But "color space" is a known terminology. Search wikipedia and you'll get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space. Now try "pixel format" and you'll get nothing. Do we really want to reinvent terminology?
I think inventing new terminology is better than overloading or hijacking existing terminology. Furthermore, I believe good names accurately describe the concepts to which they refer. Finally, as a user, seeing an unfamiliar term will either prompt me to investigate it - or at least to treat it as an unknown, and therefore with appropriate caution.
I see no overloading or hijacking.
In contrast, misleading terminology gives the false sense of understanding and leads to misuse and unpleasant surprises.
Regarding your supporting point, if I'm using a Boost library, the place I'd look for usage information is the library's docs - not Wikipedia. Of course, if questions about the problem domain (or common solution practices) arise, when reading the library docs, I would obviously turn to other resources. So long as the library makes precise use of standard terminology, and carefully documents non-standard terminology when standard terminology is non-existent or cannot be used precisely, I see no problem.
That's not my point. Take a look at all the existing libraries that use concepts. Pick one; Vigra seems popular. Note: http://tinyurl.com/y3mgfn I see no "pixel format" there. Pick another one: http://tinyurl.com/18r. See the term "color space" again? "Color Space" *IS* known terminology. That's my point. Changing it would be foolish. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net