On 12/2/06, Martin Nordholts <enselic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After going through gegl.h and hello-world.c, these are my opinions.
>
> 1. The order of the parameters to gegl_node_connect should be
> reversed, that is, it should be
>
> gboolean *gegl_node_connect* (GeglNode *source,
> *const* gchar *output_pad_name,
> GeglNode *sink,
> *const* gchar *input_pad_name);
>
> This is the order used in gegl_node_link, and personally I prefer
> to write 'from to' rather than 'to from'. In any case, the order
> of the parameters should be the same throughout the API.
I agree that all of them should behave the same. The gegl_node_link
(_many) functions are syntactic sugar on top
of this one, and should maybe be removed.
Maybe the verb should be changed as well, the rationale for the
current name is that you connect to the input pad of the object being
modified (and it feels natural that the first object is the one being
modified.)
perhaps gegl_node_connect_to (source_node, source_pad,
destination_node, destination_pad) or some other name could be used.
> 2. The term "bounding box" is clearer than "defined region". So
>
> *gegl_node_get_bounding_box
> *
I also agree that this needs changing, and the suggested name is a lot
better than the current one.
The names of the concept internally, and a decision externally
might be propagated to the inside as well. Another option might be
gegl_node_get_bounds , or with a naming choice more similar to the
ones used by cairo, gegl_node_get_extents.
/Øyvind K.
--
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
-- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/
_______________________________________________
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
