zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
hi.
Zitiere chris clepper cclepper@artic.edu:
Hi
- pix_depot - why not call it pix_buffer? or pix_table or pix_array?
because i couldn't come to a decision which one to take. i would have taken [pix_table] if it wasn't for the [pix_write] object. and [pix_tabwrite] ?
- pix_put/get - could be pix_buffer_write and pix_buffer_read. these
seem a little more specific to me and the name-space extension allows for direct association of functions with the pix_buffer object.
ok, because i have just came across it again, and i cannot remember a solution
[pix_buffer] : i think it would be a good name, but i really think it will be confused with [pix_buf] (not with [pix_separator] of course)
[pix_table] : this would probably be the best name (because of the [table] object). but (as i remember now) i was really thinking of a way to store images in real tables, which then should use [pix_tabread]/[pix_tabwrite] (that's why i am against it)
[pix_array] : maybe the only name that remains (but it is not so common again)
therefore i would vote for [pix_array], [pix_array_read], [pix_array_write].
but reading this, it seems like i was only arguing to prove that i was right.
therefore i would vote for [pix_buffer], [pix_buffer_read], [pix_buffer_write].
mfg.asd.r IOhannes