On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 09:41 -0400, Chuck Rolke wrote:
> 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.

Yup. C++ does not have such strong naming traditions as some languages
since it sort of grew by accident and misadventure out of C and
originally did not have any standard library written in C++ to provide
an example. However these days there is a large and widely used std
library with a clear naming convention so I'm strongly tempted to go that
way.

> 
> ----- 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.
> > 

Reply via email to