Seems right to me. Enumerating where we are right now:
- follow Sun Java coding conventions except for:
- line length of 100 or 120 characters
- allow use of "_" for naming class-level variables
- allow declaration before use of variables
- use "todo" instead of "fixme"
- nix the "I" naming convention
What else?
On 6/8/05, Richard Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree... we're amazingly close to agreement (compromise) here. The
> only snag we've run into is the "I" prefix, and it sounds like we're OK
> with *not* mandating it at this point. Beyond that, does anyone else
> object to any of the other mods we've made (or to the whole idea)?
>
> Daryl Olander wrote:
>
> >I think we are pretty close to agreement, though we haven't heard from
> >a lot of people. I think the biggest source of debate is code changes
> >(like renaming interfaces and variables). This may be style, but
> >there are code changes in public APIs that would be required to match
> >this spec.
> >
> >On 6/8/05, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This whole thread is a good argument for why you should just use the
> >>standard Sun/Java conventions without mods... I think you'll end up
> >>in a long debate over the mods where no one is ever satisfied.
> >>Coding conventions are just too much about style and thus, there is no
> >>"right" or "wrong" to ground the debate.
> >>
> >>On 6/8/05, Eddie ONeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The "I" naming convention is applied to only Java interfaces like:
> >>>
> >>> public interface IFoo {...}
> >>>
> >>>It's not meant to be used on abstract base classes -- which aren't
> >>>interfaces -- just an API.
> >>>
> >>> It's really meant to make very obvious in code what is and is not an
> >>>interface without having to consult the Javadoc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This seems somewhat dubious to me... when do I ever use a class or
> >>interface _without_ consulting the Javadoc to know what it does? If
> >>I am a casual user (i.e not subclassing a class or implementing the
> >>interface, just interacting with an instance), I generally don't
> >>really care whether it is a class or interface.
> >>
> >>Also, you can't go back and "fix" existing interfaces, lest you create
> >>major back compat issues... so you are going to end up with
> >>inconsistency anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
