Sebastien Lelong wrote:
> There's another decision we have to take (AFAIK this is the last one). This
> is about naming conventions. I've proposed things about that in the JSG (see
> section "Filenames, variables, procedures naming convention"), Eur suggests
> other things, which are described here:
The section of JSG about names is somewhat unclear about what is meant
by <function>. Maybe <device-class> is better, I'll use it below.
[about procedure/function names in general]
I've said before that I prefer the common API approach. I don't see any
advantage in having the specific device in the function name of a
write-to-lcd or read-from-co2-sensor. Eur's 'con'-argument is that it is
unclear which device is used. So what? In the logic of the program I
don't care about the particular device, at best about the device-class
I'll know it anyway, because I included the library *with* the device
name! If a programmer cannot remember that on the next page of his
program then I would not trust any of his programs!
The same applies to variables and pseudo variables.
[about the sequence of <function> and <device-class>]
This is very arbitrary to me. I have a slight preference for the
device-class as prefix rather than suffix for both function/procedures
and for variables.
Regards, Rob.
--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
