Joel de Guzman wrote:
Kai Schroeder wrote:
As nobody has mentioned it yet, I would like to point out that boost:gil already uses the _view ending. Quoting from the documentation:
An image view is a generalization of STL's range concept to multiple dimensions. Similar to ranges (and iterators), image views are shallow, don't own the underlying data and don't propagate their constness over the data. For example, a constant image view cannot be resized, but may allow modifying the pixels.
GIL uses names like greyscale_view, nth_channel_view, planar_rgb_view. Using 'ed' style naming one could use names like greyscale_converted, nth_channel_selected. I am not sure what naming scheme is better but some consistency within boost would be nice.
Let me add that both Fusion and MPL also use _view to name views. It's so obvious and natural. OTOH, 'ed'? Duh! ;-)
For the sake of consistency with Boost libraries, please name it _view.
Here's a suggestion: In fusion, all algorithms are lazy, so algorithms' spellings are as-is. The _view suffix pertains to the object's class returned by the algorithm, not the algorithm itself. For example: transform(s, f) --> transform_view<S, F> If Fusion had both lazy and immediate algorithms (again Fusion has only the lazy variants), I'd place the lazy algorithms in a separate namespace. One doesn't usually combine lazy and immediate algorithms, right, no? I think I'd rather see something like: { using range_ex::transform; // immediate transform(s, f); } { using range_ex::view::transform; transform(s, f); } Or some such. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net