[PD-dev] [GEM] names

[IOhannes zmoelnig]

zmoelnig at iem.at wrote:
> hi.
> 
> Zitiere chris clepper <cclepper at 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