Jeff Flinn wrote:
"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.
This is the only reason I'm still undecided.
Perhaps 'buf' should be un-abbreviated to 'buffer'?
There's already a pretty useful, but undocumented template called buffer. It implements ... a 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
Unfortunately nobody but me liked the term "resource," so I switched to "device." Thanks for taking the time to write.
Jeff Flinn
Jonathan