On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:09PM -0800, Lehi Toskin wrote: > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-8, Royall Spence wrote: > > I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the > > functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in > > the FFI binding or define them as "libname-do-stuff"? Is there a convention > > for these things? > > What I like to do is libname-do-stuff, but I'm partial to the idea of > dropping the libname part and instead just having do-stuff. That is, unless > there's frequent naming conflicts.
As a reader of programs, I find it very helpful when encountering a name for it to be easy to find the library that defines it. -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
