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. > > 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. > > 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. Chris
