OpenEuphoria

Re: naming convention

• Posted by jacques deschênes <desja at globetrott?r.ne?> Apr 19, 2008
• 562 views

Yes it is what I meant in my comment, I like that style. its no more trouble
than the use of:
incluse  string.e as  str
str:foo()

Reading the code one knows from which library the identifier come from and at
the same it tell the nature of data object on which it work.
for exemple str_split() tel us that it is from string library and at the same we
knows that it work on string. The more a function name tell about itself the less
one need to comment is code.

Jacques Deschênes

Aku wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure I follow. Can you expand a bit? I too dislike cryptic
> > names
> > but also dislike string_split_by_char("John Doe", " "). I would strive for a
> > happy medium, but I am open to suggestions. The current functions are all
> > lower
> > case and separated by an underscore where needed. I was going to follow
> > suite
> > but I do not think that's what your speaking of.
> 
> Just my 0.02 cents (that's 0.0002$),
> 
> In my own Eu projects, because Eu do not have a neat namespace feature,
> I usually named my function with combination of _ and camelCase.
> 
> So, if I were to make replace all function for strings library, I will use
> a name like str_replaceAll instead of replaceAll or replace_all or 
> str_replace_all. Then str_indexOf, str_lastIndexOf. The same goes for hash,
> 
> math, dll, struct, date etc. Like hash_put, date_getSecond, etc.
> 
> How if we follow Java API for those standard packages? (vector, hash,
> set, date, pattern (regex), etc) I think Java API is tested by time and by
> users, and the design is quite great. 
> 
> When I create Eu program now, I almost always use my standard include file.
> 
> Unfortunately not every people wants to write their own standard include file.