On Monday 02 February 2015 17:41:54 Jon A. Cruz wrote: > Even factoring in camel case, Java also specifies that namespaces should > be lower-case. Qt could be considered the outlier here as it started as > a proprietary commercial product that was not following common C++, but > creating a custom blend with Objective C and such. Trolltech was also > focused on selling into the MS Windows developer environment so that is > another factor in regards to their naming.
Indeed, MFC classes are also capitalised with CamelCase, but neither Java nor MFC classes are the origin, since the early Qt classes showed up in Eirik Chambe-Eng's doctoral thesis and that predates those two frameworks. Of course, it also predates the C++ standard by 7 years, though there were prototypes and proposals of what would become STL. > So we have three out of the four referenced areas promoting lower-cased > namespaces. Those also come from people working from a clean language > viewpoint as opposed to that of a middleware toolkit product. I think we fall into the category of "middleware product" ourselves. > And to be clear, I also personally prefer CamelCase naming with classes > capitalized. I don't mind the namespace either way. In fact, I prefer we use "iotivity" in all-lower since then we don't have to tell people how to capitalise properly. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
