I got a table of unsigneds, here i render things per pixel,
The trouble is if I dad to use it for years I should chose a real
good name for this table, and cannot really decide what name
would be good, I used many: pBits, pixels, pixelbuffer think also about
frame, target, dont know seen some use real much names for this
What name to choose? I thing this better should be shorter than longer
but also should be good (also need names for its sizes like int pixels_x,
int pixels_y)
?
some advice?
Not so short, but maybe framebuffer?
That is a pretty common name for a buffer you draw into
I also thinked so, but is such pixelbuffer i mean, a
framebuffer? (does not framebuffer have some other
meaning realted to gpu or something?)
also it is somewhat to long, also this 'buffer' is vague
more plastic would be for example framebitmap,
rawframebits or something
as to frame and as to bitmap
this is bitmap but this is not general bitmap but frame
contents (not sure if i can or shuld redesign my framework to
render to any bitmap then only blit it so framebuffor notion would
be skipped at all
as to frame it has other strong meaning so also im not sure if i could use this (maybe?)
recently i was using pixelbuffer name but i am unhappy with it
(if someone has some idea better or worse feel free to advice that)
I wouldn't waste too many cycles over-thinking it.
'buffer' is common for refering to a homogeneous block of memory -- if we're talking about an internal name (e.g. a class member variable) then something like that is appropriate. I also sometimes will choose a simple descriptor of what the data is in plural form, like "pixels".
If we're talking about a higher-level concept -- for example, a class your app exposes which represents the backing storage for draw operations -- then something like 'framebuffer' that describes it more conceptually is appropriate. In my old software rendering library I originally had Textures (image data sources), and Surfaces (derived from Texture, adding methods to support draw calls), but I realized not long later that the distinction was pretty silly, and the making a single class that was const-correct could serve as both mutable and non-mutable image storage. I also separated the drawing methods from the storage itself.
Its been awhile since I looked, but I believe the current state of affairs is that I have 'Surface's that are mutable or imitable depending on whether they are declared const -- those that are const can't be the target of drawing operations, and are loaded with image data through a callback provided at construction, those that are not const can be the target of draw operations or a source of image data.
