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. > >
