Re: [boost] [iostreams] request for advice on naming [repost]

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-08 22:53:22

From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
> >> Jonathan Turkanis <technews <at> kangaroologic.com> writes:
> >>
> > 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.
> 
> Meaning the names are pretty dull? Thats true. I guess I could call them
> platinum_stream and platinum_streambuf ;-)

:0)

I didn't mean dull so much as redundant or even useless (as in
not providing any benefit).

> > Is there are reason not to call them simply "stream" and
> > "streambuf?"
> 
> I like these, except that streambuf is a typedef in namespace std for
> basic_streambuf<char>.

Yeah, that would be a problem if they were standardized, but
there are likely to be a number of changes should they be
standardized, that I'm not sure this is worth worrying about.

OTOH, your concern about duplicating a name from the standard
library that isn't intended as a replacement is well-founded.

> > 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?"
> 
> These are very good, but I've tenatively decided to downplay the policy-based
> aspect of the design. I know at least one person who was turned off by the
> description of the library as involving policies. While I disagree with his
> view, and I hope he is not representive of users in general, his reaction made
> me realize that calling the library policy-based doesn't really add much.

A reasonable position, that.

> Still, I like these names, and will think about using them.

You may find these a bit redundant, but what about "iostream" and
"iostreambuf?"

Another approach, which I like less, but might give you an idea,
is "streamer" and "streambuffer."  (Well, "streambuffer" is just
fine, but I don't care much for "streamer.")

Maybe a departure from "stream" is in order: pipe, pipeline,
formatter, ...?

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;