<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Chris Robinson wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200806081608.21661.chris.kcat@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Minor point: I vote for all lower-case class names (alut::stream VS
Stream), ala STL. C++ aimed to make user-created types and native types on
a similar ground, and most C++ de-facto libraries (Boost, for one) use that
convention.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
For C, I think it should be ALUTstream so it better matches AL's type-naming
(ALuint, ALboolean, etc). Though with a C++ alut namespace, I don't have an
issue with alut::stream being a mirror of ALUTstream (though it must be
possible that an ALUTstream* and a alut::stream* be interchangeable).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
FWIW, if there's a C++ API, I think it should stick with the OpenAL
style and not adopt another style just because it's there. I never
liked the STL structure and style personally, but more to the point, I
don't think it's a good idea to change style between two API's of the
same library.<br>
<br>
But, that's my opinion :-)<br>
<br>
--"J"<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>