[boost] Re: Re: IOStreams formal review start

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-08 21:35:47

"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:200409040430.i844U9410532_at_lawrencewelk.systems.susq.com...
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > >    Sentence: "Sources, Sinks and their refinements are called
> > >       resources."
> > >
> > >    The term is overused in  programming. Maybe "data resources"
> > >    or "data-module" or so would be better.
> >
> > I know that 'resource' is a loaded term ;-) but I couldn't think of anything
> > better. 'Data-module' doesn't seem very descriptive. Unfortunately, the
standard
> > term seems to be "Source/Sink" -- which I find ugly.
>
> FWIW, I don't think "resource" captures the idea very well and I
> do agree that "source" and "sink" are rather technical, so they
> aren't so good, general purpose words.  A term used for physical
> sources and sinks and, colloquially, for their drivers, is
> "device."  Other choices: gadget, terminus, endpoint.  Among
> these, I like "endpoint" best.  It even captures the notion that
> they must be at one end or the other of a chain.

It seems there's not much support for the term 'resource', although it's come to
sound quite natural to me.

Of the various possibilities you mention, I think I like 'device' best. I'd
still want to keep source and sink for as names for input and output devices,
though, since they're the standard terms used by filtering libraries.

Jonathan