From: Nathan Myers (ncm_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-01 01:01:26
Beman wrote:
> Valentin Bonnard wrote:
> >I think we should adopt some lexical conventions if we want
> >a consistent naming in Boost.
> >
> >I suggest to follow Nathan's advice:
> >- lower_case variables and functions
> >- UpperCase types [actually mixed case, with first letter always
> uppercase]
I happen to prefer the form Upper_case over MixedCase. Besides being
more compatible with the standard usage, it looks less Java-ish and
Smalltalk-ish, and also more like natural language.
> But most boost submissions so far have been designed to work closely
> with the C++ Standard Library, so have followed its naming
> conventions. Some are likely to be proposed for inclusion in the
> five year revision to the standard, so the authors of these will be
> adamant about following the standard's naming conventions.
IMHO it would be a mistake for the Boost classes to have identically
the same name as the components proposed for the Standard. The
committee will undoubtedly change the interface in subtle or
not-so-subtle ways. Then we will have a Boost class with code
that depends on it, and a Standard class with the same name but
with different semantics.
In other words, to me it is a Good Thing if Boost names differ from
proposed Standard names by capitalization.
Nathan Myers
ncm_at_[hidden]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications