[cairo] cairomm new_path / clear_path

[Murray Cumming]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:29 -0600, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote:
> Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> > There's a function cairo_new_path() which has been wrapped in cairomm
> > as Context::clear_path().  As far as I can tell, this is just about
> > the only function whose name was changed from cairo to cairomm.  With
> > the addition of a new API cairo_new_sub_path (which I wrapped as
> > Context::new_sub_path), there's no longer an obvious correlation
> > between these functions in cairomm.  I would propose changing
> > clear_path() back to new_path().  Is anybody opposed to this?
> >
> > cairomm has not been declared API stable yet, so I think we can get
> > away with changing it now, but we should do it soon if we want to do
> > it.
> Personally, I think that clear_path() is better.
> 
> I know it is a deviation from the C cairo library, but in C++ 'new' has 
> a specific connotation (dynamic allocation) that is not present in C.

Yeah, it doesn't allocate an object so it shouldn't be called new*. That
would just lead to confusion. clear_*() makes a little more sense in
terms of the documentation.

start_new_path() is also a candidate (for the C function too, though
it's too late for that), but I still don't like the new in the middle.
 
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc at murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com