9 Jun
2010
9 Jun
'10
9:29 p.m.
Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart <at> sig.com> writes:
"endian_swap" doesn't connote the copying overhead so I see that as suitable to the in-place operation, and "endian_cast" as more appropriate to convey the copying operations.
I've been more or less neutral throughout this discussion -- it seems a bit bikeshedish in that as long as the semantics are correct, the naming doesn't warrant so much discussion. However, this is the first naming proposal I've seen suggested that I *really* like, so +1 from me on this. FWIW, as far as the namespace is concerned, I think the entirety of the library should reside in the boost::endian namespace, and these two function templates should be brought into the boost namespace via using declarations.