2012/11/8 Michael Stefaniuc <[email protected]> > On 11/08/2012 01:13 PM, Christian Costa wrote: > > > > > > 2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <[email protected] > > <mailto:[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? > dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method >
Henri said the other. It seems there is no consensus. ;) > > > I was just saying removing the interface name was not a good thing imo > > or am I missing something? > Right, the interface name needs to be there as it matches the COBJMACROS > name. Basically the C macro with a prefix. > It is what I was thinking. Match the macros and just add a class prefix if needed or just _ to avoid the conflict. Christian
