2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <[email protected]> > On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <[email protected]> wrote: > > But using just the capitalized letters from the name of the COM class as > > a prefix and skipping the "Impl" would be in hindsight the better > > standard. There are still 170+ COM interfaces to clean up which is a > > sizable number regardless of it being just 13% of the total interface > > implementations, so we could still change the standard, especially as > > the existing function/method naming standard is not strictly enforced; I > > didn't bother changing "offenders" if the name was reasonable. > > But I'm deferring this decision to Jacek / Alexandre as they are the > > drivers of the COM standardization in Wine. I don't mind too much as I > > can work with both patterns. > > > I think the only reasonable naming convention is to name things after > the implementation structure. In this case that would still end up > being "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl_...", but for a slightly different > reason. Where I agree with Nikolay is that "dmloader" would be a much > nicer name than "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl" for the implementation > structure as well, in which case you would also end up with > "dmloader_..." for method implementations. >
dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method or dmloader_Method? I was just saying removing the interface name was not a good thing imo or am I missing something?
