"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message news:db1bn4$gad$1@sea.gmane.org...
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
But speaking of "buf/stream," how about using "buf" and "stream"? E.g.,
typedef stream<file> filestream; typedef buf<file> filebuf;
typedef stream<array> arraystream; typedef buf<array> arraybuf;
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. After a quick re-read of your docs ( from a few months ago ), this comes to mind: resource_stream resource_streambuf based on: <quotation> Concepts The fundamental building blocks of the library are the concepts of a Source, which provides read access to a sequence of characters, a Sink, which provides write access to a sequence of characters, an InputFilter, which filters input read from a Source, and an OutputFilter, which filters output written to a Sink. Sources, Sinks and their refinements are called resources. InputFilters, OutputFilters and their refinements are called filters. </quotation> Jeff Flinn