From: John Morrison (jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au)
Date: 2002-03-19 15:32:12
> Hi Dave, John, Jim-P,
>
> sorry if I sound a bit terse but I'm trying to reduce the amount of
> time I spend writing messages here, in order to use it for building
> hardware... and this is the first step in that direction. Who could
> have known this habit would be so hard to kick. :-p
I know the feeling...... :-)
Lists do take up a LOT of time......But I'd love to get your input it's been
very useful!!!
> Anyway - some quick replies:
>
> John - the UML diagram looks a lot better now. I'd like to give you
> more suggestions... but like I said, I'm trying to cut down. Keep
> working and we'll see where it leads. :-)
Hay if you have any suggestions that are just bursting to come out I don't
mind if you private E-mail them to me!!
Better now than latter. :-)
> A few more namespace suggestions:
>
> eeg:: (it sounds too specialized though)
> or obw:: (open BioWare)
> or obs:: (open BodySoft)
> or gnb:: (Gnu is not biofeedback :-)
> or bio:: (sounds like the obvious choice?)
> ..
I like the obs or obw.......
Althought OpenEEG is my preference
I'm sure BIO would already be a name space somewhere and probably something
useful to us.
> On using three letter words for temperature and breath rate:
>
> > Please do not sacrifice clarity for structure.
>
> Point taken... however thermogram and pneumogram are the correct
> medical terms, and encephalogram ain't exactly colloquial either. :-)
> Maybe we should ask a BF-practicioner?
> Never mind...if it becomes important it is simply a matter of "search
> and replace" on the code.
Well I've made the change so we'll see what shapes up!
> > I am also in favor of coding standards, but not to the extent of some.
...
>
> We can use the Java coding standard for C++ as well, that's why I
> picked it. Java and C++ are grammatically very similar.
Also it works in with the doc software Dave has brought up.
> On choosing Java or C++:
>
> This is a tough one. We need to find a middle ground because we need
> everybody to be involved.
I agree !!!!!!!!!!! BUT HOW to do it :-(
> Jim-P, can you write "objectified-C"? That is, regular C code but
> with the addition of a few key C++ features. (Classes, exceptions,
> using references)
YUCK...... C++ for OO NOT "objectified-C"
> If we create a set of data types on top of the standard template
> library types, it would spare us from "raw stl". STL code is compact
> but quite difficult to read for someone with a C-only background. It
> would be very much like Java, but with a custom set of utility
> classes.
> Finally: I know I have not touched on all topics. Please be aware
> that it is not due to a lack of interest...
I'm SURE it isn't lack of interest. :-)
> Regards,
>
> Andreas
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:43 BST