We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
(/cc @stefanseefeld @chhenning)
@sdebionne suggested in #185 (comment)
should io/dynamic_io_new.hpp be io/dynamic_io.hpp really?
I think it is a valid suggestion since the current name is unnecessarily complex, may be confusing:
new
io
I'd expect renaming it is safe from compatibility point, majority of the file is boost:gil::detail namespace and just this one lives outside
boost:gil::detail
gil/include/boost/gil/io/dynamic_io_new.hpp
Lines 91 to 96 in 2250b71
but possibly it should live in the detail as well.
detail
Comments?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
refactor: Renamed io/dynamic_io_new.hpp to io/detail/dynamic.hpp (#653)
9d526ed
Closes #189
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
(/cc @stefanseefeld @chhenning)
@sdebionne suggested in #185 (comment)
I think it is a valid suggestion since the current name is unnecessarily complex, may be confusing:
new
is obscure: as in new implementation or as innew
-allocated dynamic memory, etc.io
is redundant, since all core IO headers live in dedicated directoryI'd expect renaming it is safe from compatibility point, majority of the file is
boost:gil::detail
namespace and just this one lives outsidegil/include/boost/gil/io/dynamic_io_new.hpp
Lines 91 to 96 in 2250b71
but possibly it should live in the
detail
as well.Comments?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: