----- Original Message -----
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 14:03
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Wait and Available
> Thomas, I do not like the "I" convention, myself. In general, I do not
like
> embedding type information into names as types can be changed and get out
of
> sync with the name. Indeed, interfaces often start life as abstract
classes.
type is bad -it is brittle and the compiler usually handles type safety
anyway. functionality is a different case. Does the 'I' specify type or
behaviour?
I think it just boils down to a style issue: the I prefix is certainly
windows/COM style, but that's a world where we use C in front of classes and
m_ ahead of methods. Even the C# language has abandoned those concepts.
I tend to use ISomething, except when I use the SomethingIntf style instead.
Who knows which is better?
> A classic example of this problem from Windows is the wParam member of the
> Windows message which is not a word but a long in Win32 :-)
It becomes a 64 bit 'word param' on win64...
-Steve
