Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-01 17:15:52
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Michael Caisse
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't think the point being made is that there are not different endian
> formats on networks but that the term "network byte order" actually means
> something. 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.
Yup.
> I'm not suggesting that the term "network" should even appear in an endian
> library. I would prefer the term to only exist in some domain specific
> namespace; however, ignoring well over 20-years of terminology history isn't
> going to make things clearer in the interface.
+1 for not including "network" in the interface to avoid future
discussions such as these.
Jon