Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » U++ Library support » U++ Library : Other (not classified elsewhere) » User lists of "bad" naming of classes, functions etc in U++...
Re: User lists of "bad" naming of classes, functions etc in U++... [message #23725 is a reply to message #23721] Wed, 18 November 2009 08:41 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13976
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
andrei_natanael wrote on Tue, 17 November 2009 09:41

ag_newb wrote on Tue, 17 November 2009 11:00

Boost C++ naming system should be adopted.
reason: delimiting by underscore is safer than capitalization, IMHO.

Have you an argument for this?
void DoSomething(const String& paramOne) {}

void do_something(const string& param_one) {}


IMO, using second version(with underscores) takes more time to write because when you write _ you have to press Shift+_ and that means 2 key press more than camel case naming.



I would not bother 2 more key presses.

But what I do not like about undescores is that it makes the line wider - in quite a lot more cases, it will break statements into more lines. That I believe reduces code readability.

However, I have removed 'sticky' flag of this post. I guess at this stage, any massive renaming is impossible. And as it seems the topic is quite subjective, current naming might not be the best, but is definitely usable...

Mirek
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: BUG: Key states incorrectly cleared on Ubuntu
Next Topic: Painter DrawLine proposal
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat May 11 06:15:31 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02836 seconds