Re: [boost] [GIL] review

From: Lubomir Bourdev (lbourdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-27 13:19:08

Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
> > Yes, values have a default constructor and a proper copy 
> constructor.
> > References do not. As stated in the concept definitions.
> >
> Just for the record, references do have copy constructors. Is 
> just that they are shallow.

That's what I meant by not having proper copy constructor.

> > Note also that "red", "green", etc. are not part of the 
> pixel concept.
> > Therefore you should not use the channel names directly in 
> generic code.
> 
> Ha OK.
> But x,y are part of the Point concept rigtht?

Yes, as of now.

> Thus, pixel references (for both types of pixels) yields 
> "pixel<>" objects as a closest match to a "pixel rvalue", 
> even though in the case of a planar pixel such object is 
> really a deep copy of the pixels color.

In the case of a planar pixel we also use the same object for rvalue and
lvalue - the planar reference.
It is not a deep copy of the pixel's color (it contains references to
each channel), but it is convertible to a deep copy.

> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> 
> If all that is correct, or mostly correct, then I would suggest:

Yes your description was correct.

> 
> (1) rename the pixel<> class as color<>.
> (2) rename the planar_ptr<> class as planar_pixel_iterator<>
> (3) rename the planar_ref<> class as planar_pixel_handle<>

I am hesitating to do (1). Using color is very strange when inside the
image. Color iterators? Looking at several other libraries I see the
terms pixel, pixel iterators, used frequently...

(2) is a good idea. We don't use the class directly so it is not a big
deal to have a longer name.

(3) Good suggestion, but maybe we could change to
planar_pixel_reference. I don't want to introduce the term "handle".
Reference is already used in this context, for example "reference proxy"
object is a common term.

Thanks for your suggestions,

Lubomir