Re: [boost] GIL Review

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-31 23:44:48

Matt Gruenke wrote:
> 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.

I see no overloading or hijacking.

> 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.

That's not my point. Take a look at all the existing libraries
that use concepts. Pick one; Vigra seems popular. Note:
http://tinyurl.com/y3mgfn I see no "pixel format" there.
Pick another one: http://tinyurl.com/18r. See the term
"color space" again?

"Color Space" *IS* known terminology. That's my point.
Changing it would be foolish.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net