On 02/06/10 20:01, Tomas Puverle wrote:
I am not married to the names in the current version of the code.
I liked the earlier suggestion to rename "swap_in_place" to "swap" and the current "swap" to "swap_copy".
Indeed that's better, but I'm still not enamoured with it. At the risk of confusing the issue, another possibility would be "swapped" for the out-of-place version.
But I am not totally opposed to endian::cast<> either. Names are a very subjective thing and I think it will become clearer which ones are preferable as I/others write/use the library. I will also be the first to admit that even though I try and come up with descriptive names, they are usually far from perfect, so this feedback is useful.
Actually, now that I think about it, the cast<> notation may allow me to unify the swap/to/from functions into a single form:
endian::cast<big_to_host>() //explicit direction endian::cast<from_litle>() //"to_host" is implicit endian::cast<to_big>() //"from_host" is implicit
I actually really like that. What do you think?
Yes! I do like that. For the out-of-place version, I think this is definitely better than the swap-based names. John