The .NET binding on top of Qpid C++ Messaging library had the same problem. cjansen suggested that the binding present a naming convention consistent with what the binding users might expect. So that binding did not simply copy all the C++ function and variable names but renamed them along the way.
If you do a one-to-one mapping it's sometimes easier to see what exactly the function and variable mapping is. When stuff is renamed it's harder. You are so early in the dev cycle that you can be consistent in whatever form you choose. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "aconway" <acon...@redhat.com> > To: "proton" <proton@qpid.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 2:47:06 PM > Subject: C++ binding naming conventions: Qpid vs. C++ > > C++ standard library uses lowercase_and_underscores, but Qpid C++ > projects to date use JavaWobbleCaseIndentifiers. Is the C++ binding the > time to start writing C++ like C++ programmers? Or will somebody's head > explode if class names start with a lower case letter? > > In particular since the proton C library is written in typical > c_style_with_underscores, I am finding the CamelCase in the C++ binding > to be an ugly clash. > > DoesAnybodyReallyThinkThis is_easier_to_read_than_this? > > Cheers, > Alan. >
