[gmpi] Re: low level API - Abstract Factory summary

  • From: "Angus F. Hewlett" <angus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:52:16 +0000

Paul Davis wrote:

Totally agree.  GMPI COM doesn't have to match Microsoft's syntax, and
there's good reason not to.

status_t GMPI_CreateFactory( UUID uuid, GMPI_Factory** factory_ptr_ptr );

Is that better? <g>



alright, alright, i get the point folks :)

but now a serious question. how does the above example look to you?
because, as petty and pathetic and appalling as it may be, the version
you wrote above makes me feel good and the other version makes me feel
horrible. is that a symmetrical experience for you?


Looks a bit long-winded to me... particularly factory_ptr_ptr... but not unworkable. From a political point of view, I'd rather see Unix-y naming conventions than Windows-y ones, if only to avoid offending Mac zealots ;-)

Regards,
      Angus.




--
=========================================================
Angus F. Hewlett, Managing Director (CEO)
FXpansion Audio UK Ltd - http://www.fxpansion.com
Registered in the UK - #4455834 - VAT: GB 798 7782 33
=========================================================



---------------------------------------------------------------------- Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: