Re: [boost] Progress of Boost.SVG_Plot

From: Martin Bonner (Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 04:30:21

From: Jake Voytko 
> The stream vs. member function discussion seems to be quite a dividing
> point! 

> Could I just provide both? There's no obvious roadblock as far as
> implementation goes. The only question that remains in my mind is,
> "is that good programming practice?"

<pulls face> Providing two interfaces because you couldn't decide on the
right one doesn't sound right to me.

[warning: quoting looks wrong here]
>> Does "output" feels better than "write"? No - perhaps write is OK?
>> 
>> my_plot.output("my_image.svg") also feels right to me.
> 
> I think that's just a preference thing, and I personally like "write"
> better than "output". If this is a sticking point with a lot of
people,
> I'll do the find replace :)

For both write/output and <</set, I suggest that you remember boost is
not a democracy.  Each library has its own dictator (in this case, you),
and the only real power the rest of us have is to reject your library.
I find it almost inconceivable that a useful library to generate SVG
graphics would be rejected because an interface function is called
"write" rather than "output".  The main point is to concentrate on
making the library actually useful.

Don't read this as discouraging you from trying to reach a concensus on
interface matters; just remember that if you can't, /you/ get to choose.

(Except of course that you should obviously change from << to set.. :-)

-- 
Martin Bonner
Project Leader
PI SHURLOK LTD
Telephone: [phone] / 203894 (direct)
Fax: [phone]
Email: martin.bonner_at_[hidden]
www.pi-shurlok.com