On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 11:26 +0100, 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.
Operator overloading is lovely. When reading fixed size audio chunks a function call syntax makes more sense though (how else would you specify the chunk size? sndfile>>setw(1024)>>my_buffer is a bit too weird). > > > Secondly, with regard to the method names, which do you prefer: > > > > > > - OpenRead > > > - openRead > > > - open_read > > > > vote++, i never cared for the more java style methodName convention. > > 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. I use ClassNames and function_names all the time. I think it makes it easier to distinguish between them. > > > Since you're the only person who actually responded to the real > > > meat of my email, I have to assume that you are the only person > > > on this list with a love for C++ and hence the only one who > > > should have any real input on this issue ;-). > > > > Nicely worded :) > > Mmm. For what it's worth, I write mostly C++ but have no problem with using > the libsndfile C API. I don't really mind whether it has a C++ API as well > or not. So yes, you probably should ignore me. I agree - the libsndfile API is simple enough to fit into C++ code quite nicely. -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part