On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Bruno Girin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 15:32 -0700, Jim Nelson wrote: > > Agreed too. Although, I'm curious: what would be the difference between > an organisation that is easy for Vala coders and one that makes it easy > for C coders? Also I suspect that any GObject library written in Vala > should be usable as a Vala library so can't be too far from the standard > Vala practice. > > I guess what I'm keying off here is the name of the file matching the name of the class inside of it. Because classes are such priority objects in languages like Vala, it makes sense to me that the filename would match them case-wise. However, seeing that other Vala projects don't do it this way, I'm not saying this is the only way to do it. I'm not even seeing a "standard" Vala naming practice yet. I guess my larger point was, because Vala isn't C, I don't feel we should simply be imitating GNOME C conventions. But if we think it through and it makes sense, I'm not against them either. > One way to do it is to go for a one class per file organisation by > default and have exceptions for cases where a set of classes actually > make sense together. > I suspect that's the scheme I'll go for when the time comes. > Namespaces are a great feature. It's the default way that Java operates > and my experience with Java is that it helps tremendously in making the > code clearer, especially when the name space naming convention follows > the directory structure and logical organisation of the files. > I agree, their package scheme does go a long way to keeping things tidy. If we can clean things up, create a natural and unsurprising consistency in naming, and stick to the policy moving forward, I think we'll be in good shape. -- Jim _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
