From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 01:07:25
Matt Gruenke wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> Matt Gruenke wrote:
>>> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> 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
>> I see no overloading or hijacking.
> The classical definition of color space is not concerned with data
> layout (i.e. channel ordering). In many cases, the channel names in
> common use are heavily overloaded, and are therefore quite inadequate
> for specifying a color space.
I disagree. A color space is a tuple of numbers. It is concerned with
data and layout as far as I can see. That is the very definition of
> Data format and pixel semantics are orthogonal concepts. A primary goal
> of GIL is to separate these concepts. IMO, the names used in GIL should
> reflect this.
I agree. That is why I support the idea that color spaces as tuples
where the algorithms are separated from the containers. IOTW,
color spaces are separate from color-space algorithms.
>> That's not my point. Take a look at all the existing libraries
>> that use concepts. Pick one; Vigra seems popular.
> As far as I can tell, GIL does not seek to be only as good as other
> libraries, in what it does - nor should it. In fact, its main objective
> seems to be to take a principled approach to the problem of image
> representation, access, and conversion and, in so doing, to provide a
> better foundation for imaging libraries and applications than existing
> solutions. Otherwise, why bother?
> Years of programming experience have taught me that semantics matter.
> Clouded semantics limit extensibility and cause confusion, bugs, and
> redundancy. (Ambiguity should be deliberate, and carefully bounded.)
Years of experience has taught me that gratuitous invention of
new terms is not a good thing.
>> "Color Space" *IS* known terminology. That's my point.
> "known" and "accurate" are distinct criteria.
I agree. And to me "pixel-format" is unknown, confusing and inaccurate.
The worst of the worst. It's like calling a std::vector a data-container
just because the std::vector does not quite follow the "classical" term
of vector. Let's not be too pedantic.
( Clearly, this is getting to be a bicycle-shed, so I'll just let it
be and let the authors do what they think is best. of all things I do
not like are naming games. )
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk