[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings

john skaller skaller at users.sourceforge.net
Thu Feb 2 12:36:02 CET 2012

On 02/02/2012, at 10:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Gary Wright <at2002+zmq at me.com> wrote:
>> message:
>> fragment:
>> frame:
> Makes sense. "fragment" is long, for an API word. But in fact the only
> real issue to solve here is consistency: any semantics will work, if
> repeated consistently. So there will be a lot of changes to make in
> bindings, code, and docs. Anyone proposing changes has to be willing
> to take this work on. There is no other way it will happen. ("I think
> someone should do X" does not work and never has).

Is that a job ad? :) 

I am willing to work with a team modifying the API reference.
Guidance on procedure from high priests required.
At least two other people to argue with required.

Suggest initial discussion in Wiki/forums and possibly
committing a revised API manual with a different directory
just like an upgraded standards document (i.e. don't modify
the current API reference).

I note 3.1 isn't stable, so change wording and terms, whilst
confusing to existing clients, correctness and precision should, IMHO, 
take precedence. Bjarne Stroustrip once said of C++:

"As close to C as possible but no closer" 

and that's probably a good guideline here.

john skaller
skaller at users.sourceforge.net

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list