What might be an advantage to using something like the I-prefix? At first glance, this appears to be unbeneficial hungarian notation.
Aesthetically, this seems backwards (to me). I want interfaces and protocols to have the most readable names. I'm willing to concede on less readable names for concrete implementations. Many implementations and participants will even be anonymous. On Friday, September 5, 2014 5:52:48 AM UTC-4, Dave Sann wrote: > > I saw a comment on protocol naming here: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/A4xIitQWloU/6E4xHDTPPaIJ > > there is nothing in the coding standards: > http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards (are > these maintained?) > > is there any sensible consensus on good naming convention? > > IBlah > PBlah > BlahP > Blah > ...other > > ...doesn't matter > > Dave > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
