On 02/02/2015 04:48 PM, Keane, Erich wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:46 -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: >>>> For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the >>>> current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Again, I agree and dropping prefixing would match C++ conventions. >>> Subjectively I personally like lower-case namespaces better for C++. >>> Among other things that matches common C++ libraries such as STL, Boost, >>> etc. >> >> To match the Standard Library and Boost, we should also begin using >> names_with_underscore, which we don't. >> >> Instead, we're following more the Java / Qt model with CamelCase names and >> where types always start with a capital letter. > > Yeah, this is perhaps not a bad point to switch names to underscores if > we feel it is important, however I believe CamelCase was specified when > the project began. >
Even factoring in camel case, Java also specifies that namespaces should be lower-case. Qt could be considered the outlier here as it started as a proprietary commercial product that was not following common C++, but creating a custom blend with Objective C and such. Trolltech was also focused on selling into the MS Windows developer environment so that is another factor in regards to their naming. So we have three out of the four referenced areas promoting lower-cased namespaces. Those also come from people working from a clean language viewpoint as opposed to that of a middleware toolkit product. And to be clear, I also personally prefer CamelCase naming with classes capitalized.
