Michael wrote: > In the field, we have many permutations of "doc," "app," and "view" in a large > number of member- and local variables. We'd never search and replace all the > local variables, and so some bit of code like "m_view->blah()" where m_view > is of type RosegardenMainWidget seems rather confusing.
That's a good point. On the other hand, it's not a problem for "doc" and we can probably replace most of the "app"s without too much trouble, leaving a few to pick off as we go on. I think it's worth it for "app" because it's just _so_ bad a name. I agree that this suggests we might want to retain "view" somewhere though. > I wouldn't object to shortening "Rosegarden" to "RG" either. Or "Application" > to "App." I'm quite sick of typing these long names as they are No tab completions? > (Though I've noticed our code is now such a mess with Emanuel and apparently > even myself committing stuff that's off by 1-3 spaces, probably due to the > perennial tab problems Yes, there's a lot of that. I'm not concerned about it at the moment because it's actually quite helpful to see what code has been changed during the port. I think we can do some targeted reformatting later. Emanuel wrote: > I'm pleased with renaming those. > Although I could live with shorter names: > > RgDocument > RgMainWindow > RgTrackViewWidget > RgCanvasWidget Sorry, what's the last one a replacement for? The others (for doc, app and view) seem quite credible. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
