Subject: Re: [boost] GIL io_new review
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-13 12:28:37
Christian Henning wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Phil Endecott
> <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hi Lubomir,
>> Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>>> I think the discussion here is not free functions vs classes but whether
>>> or not to maintain a state. Please note that both you and Christian use
>>> classes to maintain the state; Christian simply wraps the classes into free
>>> functions for simple things like read and write an entire image. But to do
>>> something more complicated, such as read the image in parts, one can simply
>>> build that functionality using the classes directly.
>> I've not noticed these classes and this functionality in Christian's code;
>> could you point out which code you're referring to?
> Each backend defines a reader< format_tag > class which is derived
> from reader_base. Same goes for when writing images.
Those classes are not part of the public interface though, are they?
(Sorry, I should have said "in the interface" before.)
Lubomir, when you wrote "to do something more complicated, such as read
the image in parts, one can simply build that functionality using the
classes directly", were you suggesting that the user should use these
private classes, or that they could do this by extending the extension,
or something else?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk