From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 16:52:39
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> I had another idea:
>>
>> device_stream, device_streambuf
>>
>> Unlike 'stream_facade' and 'streambuf_facade,' these are perfect
>> descriptions of the components. They don't roll off the tongue very
>> easily, though.
>
> "device_stream" suggests a stream of devices rather than of
> data. Besides, I don't really get the reference to "device."
>
> That does lead me to suggest "data_stream" and "data_streambuf,"
> however.
Oddly, the library from which these components originally came was called
Datastreams.
"data_stream" and "data_streambuf" have the same problem as "generic_stream" and
"generic_streambuf": the prefix "data_" doesn't add any information, since all
streams and stream buffers process data in one form or another. In fact, I think
they're slightly worse than "generic_stream" and "generic_streambuf," because
someone might think that "data" has a special meaning in this context, when in
fact it doesn't.
I think I've narrowed it down to "xxx_facade," "device_xxx," "devxxx" (suggested
by Gareth Sylvester-Bradley) and "xxxx" (note the extra 'x' ;-) ).
I'm going to try to get more people involved by soliciting votes. People seem to
like voting, for some reason.
Thanks for brainstorming with me.
Jonathan