From: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto@cs.aau.dk>
Jonathan Turkanis <technews <at> kangaroologic.com> writes:
sure that the analogy with the iterators library will be very effective in helping users understand these templates. As a result, I'm think of using the less technical-sounding names "generic_streambuf" and "generic_stream."
What do people think?
seems ok. have you considered
Hmmm. I agree that the original names are misleading. They don't create a facade over another class, they are provide the functionality directly. However, "generic_streambuf" sounds too, well, generic.
basic_streambuf<> basic_stream<>
as an analogy with regex/string etc ?
As compared to std::basic_istream et al, these classes are hardly what one would call basic. They push the concepts far forward. Thus, should these classes be standardized, std::basic_stream doesn't stand apart from the other class templates. Furthermore, they aren't specialized on the character type as those other templates are, so they deserve different names. Is there are reason not to call them simply "stream" and "streambuf?" If you're concerned about the possibility of typedefs or other uses of those names in either the std or boost namespace, then how about "policy_stream" and "policy_streambuf?"
I'm thinking of renaming the headers that are curently based on component names so that all headers will have short, simple names. E.g.,
bzip2.hpp counter.hpp gzip.hpp line.hpp newline.hpp one_step.hpp regex.hpp stdio.hpp symmetric.hpp test.hpp zlib.hpp
Thoughts?
I like you renaming.
Seems reasonable given that they are already in the filter subdirectory. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;