Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-30 10:23:41

Michael,

> 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 
ideas.

> Tom, I'm looking forward to reading more about your library.

Thank you.  And I look forward to any additional comments you may have.

Tom