Re: [boost] GIL Review

From: Matt Gruenke (mgruenke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-31 22:34:50

Joel de Guzman wrote:

>Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>  
>
>>I guess our documentation was not very clear... 
>>The only aspects that GIL color spaces combine are the ordering and the
>>name of the channels. Maybe using Fernando's suggestion things will be
>>clearer - instead of color spaces, think of them as "pixel formats".
>>    
>>
>
>Ouch. But "color space" is a known terminology. Search wikipedia
>and you'll get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space. Now
>try "pixel format" and you'll get nothing. Do we really want
>to reinvent terminology?
>  
>

I think inventing new terminology is better than overloading or 
hijacking existing terminology.  Furthermore, I believe good names 
accurately describe the concepts to which they refer.  Finally, as a 
user, seeing an unfamiliar term will either prompt me to investigate it 
- or at least to treat it as an unknown, and therefore with appropriate 
caution.

In contrast, misleading terminology gives the false sense of 
understanding and leads to misuse and unpleasant surprises.

Regarding your supporting point, if I'm using a Boost library, the place 
I'd look for usage information is the library's docs - not Wikipedia.  
Of course, if questions about the problem domain (or common solution 
practices) arise, when reading the library docs, I would obviously turn 
to other resources.  So long as the library makes precise use of 
standard terminology, and carefully documents non-standard terminology 
when standard terminology is non-existent or cannot be used precisely, I 
see no problem.

Matt