Chris Cannam wrote: > On Wednesday 26 Jul 2006 11:12, Florian Paul Schmidt wrote: > > Well, it is very thin though. Which is not a bad thing at all. One could > > make ue of an arbitrary amount of more advanced C++ features if desired > > though (i.e. templates parametrized with the type you want to read for > > example, or operator<< and operator>> for reading and writing, etc.) > > operator<< and >>... ugh.
Yeah I really gotta agree here. Overloading the left and right shift operators has got to the thing I find most distasteful about C++. > I think if your class is named LikeThis, then your method should be named > likeThat (Java-style). If your method is named like_this, then your class > should be named like_that (STL-style). Either is fine, but don't mix your > dialects. Ok, "don't mix dialects" is a good tip. Most of the proposed methods for the Sndfile class have single word names so Java style might be the best option. > Mmm. For what it's worth, I write mostly C++ but have no problem > with using the libsndfile C API. Most people who really know C++ know enough to be comfortable with pure C. I'm pretty sure you fall into this category. However, I do get emails from some of the more clueless Windiots complaining that libsndfile is written in old-fashioned C instead of nice shiny modern C++. IMNSHO these people should not be allowed anywhere near a language as complex, subtle, and unforgiving as C++ (or for that matter as unforgiving as C). Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "I consider C++ the most significant technical hazard to the survival of your project and do so without apologies." -- Alistair Cockburn
