Since nobody seems to have disagreed, perhaps we should just commit this? -- PMM
On 13 January 2012 20:29, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > Clarify that enum type names and function type names should follow > the CamelCase style used for structured type names. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > --- > During a conversation on IRC with Anthony, I realised that the coding > standard isn't entirely clear about what convention should be followed > for enum and function types. This patch resolves that by saying they > should be CamelCase like structured type names, based on Anthony's > suggestion. I've tagged this as an RFC in case anybody would rather > we went the other way instead... > > CODING_STYLE | 3 ++- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE > index 6e61c49..7c82d4d 100644 > --- a/CODING_STYLE > +++ b/CODING_STYLE > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ Rationale: > 3. Naming > > Variables are lower_case_with_underscores; easy to type and read. Structured > -type names are in CamelCase; harder to type but standing out. Scalar type > +type names are in CamelCase; harder to type but standing out. Enum type > +names and function type names should also be in CamelCase. Scalar type > names are lower_case_with_underscores_ending_with_a_t, like the POSIX > uint64_t and family. Note that this last convention contradicts POSIX > and is therefore likely to be changed. > -- > 1.7.1 > >