On Saturday 07 December 2002 18.21, Paul Davis wrote:
[...Audiality naming conventions...]
> see? c++ is good for something, eh?
Well, there must be a reason why it was created, I guess... ;-)
[...]
> i can imagine that
> there are cases where namespaces could be considered so valuable as
> to m
>> How about this for Audiality:
>>
>> Functions: a_whatever()
>> Types: at_whatever
>
>I think a_ is too breif. aud_foo(), maybe. And types of AUD_foo_type;
>Its the easiest. Because nothing sucks worse than accidentally namig a
>variable or function the same as a type
On Saturday 07 December 2002 16.59, David Olofson wrote:
> On Saturday 07 December 2002 07.36, Tim Hockin wrote:
[...]
> > aud_foo(), maybe. And types of
> > AUD_foo_type; Its the easiest.
ady_*() and ADY_*...?
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return
On Saturday 07 December 2002 07.36, Tim Hockin wrote:
> > How about this for Audiality:
> >
> > Functions: a_whatever()
> > Types: at_whatever
>
> I think a_ is too breif.
I think so too... Could mean anything - and many names and words
start with an 'a'.
> aud_foo(), may
> How about this for Audiality:
>
> Functions: a_whatever()
> Types: at_whatever
I think a_ is too breif. aud_foo(), maybe. And types of AUD_foo_type;
Its the easiest. Because nothing sucks worse than accidentally namig a
variable or function the same as a type and t
Just wondering how the h*ll you're supposed to name functions and
types when all sensible naming conventions seem to be reserved by
POSIX and other authorities...
How about this for Audiality:
Functions: a_whatever()
Types: at_whatever
I bet *some* lib is using a
