On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 16:46 -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: > > > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the > > > current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!). > > > > > > > > > > Again, I agree and dropping prefixing would match C++ conventions. > > Subjectively I personally like lower-case namespaces better for C++. > > Among other things that matches common C++ libraries such as STL, Boost, > > etc. > > To match the Standard Library and Boost, we should also begin using > names_with_underscore, which we don't. > > Instead, we're following more the Java / Qt model with CamelCase names and > where types always start with a capital letter.
Yeah, this is perhaps not a bad point to switch names to underscores if we feel it is important, however I believe CamelCase was specified when the project began. > > Sudarshan wrote: > > My suggestion is to wait for the connectivity-abstraction branch to be > > merged with master and then do these changes. Otherwise, it will add > > complexity in merging those two branches. > > Agreed. The fewer branches outstanding, the smaller the surface. > > That said, should we begin using the new style for any new code? > I don't think we should diverge names, that would just be confusing. I would suggest sticking to where we are for now, and doing all the name changes in a single patch.
