Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-30 10:23:41
> It is not a wishful or ambiguous description
> it is actually a real term with real meaning. Thanks to the Berkeley API
> that many of us grew up with "host to network" also has real meaning.
I don't think we were disputing it at all; we were trying to...
> I'm not suggesting that the term "network" should even appear in an
> endian library.
...make the same point as you have here.
> I would prefer the term to only exist in some domain
> specific namespace;
Completely agree. Hence my reference to having the typedef as part of
an "application" as opposed to the core part of the endian library.
> however, ignoring well over 20-years of terminology
> history isn't going to make things clearer in the interface.
I am not - I was simply pointing out that it's not a network library. This
typedef should, perhaps be better placed in ASIO, even though I still think
even that is somewhat contentious.
> Can we keep the term network out of the main interface and simply add it
> to namespaces as Terry has suggested?
Do you have a suggestion? I am not sure that adding anything about networking
to the endian library is the correct separation of concerns but I am open to
> Tom, I'm looking forward to reading more about your library.
Thank you. And I look forward to any additional comments you may have.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk