On second thought, never mind. It's only a very small number of functions that are at all ambiguous, and I think it's completely justified to do this for those few.
Don't bother replying unless you have a really, really good reason why I should not add these synonyms and eventually deprecate the old version. On Oct 4, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Larry Gritz wrote: > Some IBA functions take a destination and one or more source images, are > non-destructive to the source images, and will initialize the dst image if it > isn't already initialized. > > Other IBA functions take only a destination image, require it to be already > initialized/sized, and modify it in-place. > > This is bugging me, and I'm contemplating renaming all the ones that operate > in-place as "foo_inplace", versus "foo" for a similar function that takes > separate dst and src arguments and copies material into dst (initializing it > if necessary). The purpose is to make the function names more > self-documenting, and also to leave room for a possible future in which we > could have both copying and in-place versions of many of these functions. > > Anybody particularly in favor, or desperately want me to do no such thing? > > I'm thinking of leaving the existing (but deprecated under this plan) ones as > they are for a full release, so that nothing will break without giving people > lots of time to rename their function calls. > > -- Larry Gritz [email protected] _______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
