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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
