21 Jul
2011
21 Jul
'11
11:15 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:58, Joshua Juran <jjuran@gmail.com> wrote:
As for "ringbuffer", I would consider shortening it to just "ring".
I'm not sure if ringbuffer share exactly the same concepts than boost::circular_buffer but to be consistent with this library naming maybe ringbuffer should be circular_buffer? I prefer "ring" alone personnally but as circular_buffer have been accepted before maybe it's naming is more explicit to a lot of reviewers? Joël Lamotte