Hi Niklas, you wrote: > > OK - so, what naming scheme would you propose? > > Any one, it's consistency that matters. Roll a dice. Or leave some > latitude, allowing "m" or "m_", for example. But we do use some > "moderate Hungarian" with "nVal" and "aObject", so this shouldn't be > an implied rule that someone can only learn by asking, it should be > documented. > > At least it was my impression up to now that the whole thing is > supposed to be "how we do things at OOo", not another list of "C++ > best practices". > Not quite. It's a "how we should do things at OOo", distilled from a set of rules and best practices others found useful.
But certainly, the borderline between general usefulness, OOo peculiarities and plain "that's how it is" is fuzzy - topics like code format and obsolete habits already show that. What about stating what you want on a per-module basis? The http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories entry point already provides general overviews for a few modules, and linking to individual module manifests (that document such conventions) would clearly be helpful. Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
