I like the I prefix, it makes things very easy.
However I learned that native english speakers identify interfaces on
the name.
Useally interface ends of ''able". For example Writ'able' or
Serializ'able'.
Stefan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
101tec Inc., Menlo Park, California
web: http://www.101tec.com
blog: http://www.find23.net
On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Hans,
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:25 +0200, Hans Dockter wrote:
Hi,
I'm wondering what convention we should use for naming interfaces.
Right now my approach is to use an 'I' prefix for interfaces of the
internal API and no prefix for public interfaces like Project. I'm
wondering if we should skip the I-prefix altogether.
- Hans
I have to admit I have never really seen the efficacy of Hungarian
Notation which this prefixing of interface names with I is an echo of.
I think it is fashionable to do this in C# but that doesn't make it
useful.
I guess it depends on whether splitting interface and class is
important
or whether type is the important thing.
Perhaps hypocritically, I do like separating type names and variable
and
function names, so I like the Java convention of capitals for types
and
lowercase for variables and methods. I use this in C++ and Python
where
it is more conventionally not to distinguish -- but then I prefer
Camel
Case convention to large numbers of _ to separate words in a name.
Summary: My view is drop the Is.
--
Russel.
====================================================
Dr Russel Winder Partner
Concertant LLP t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203
41 Buckmaster Road, f: +44 8700 516 084
London SW11 1EN, UK. m: +44 7770 465 077
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
