On 11/8/2012 15:41, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
On 11/08/2012 01:13 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <hverb...@gmail.com <mailto:hverb...@gmail.com>>
On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <mstef...@redhat.com
<mailto:mstef...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> But using just the capitalized letters from the name of the COM
class as
> a prefix and skipping the "Impl" would be in hindsight the better
> standard. There are still 170+ COM interfaces to clean up which is a
> sizable number regardless of it being just 13% of the total interface
> implementations, so we could still change the standard, especially as
> the existing function/method naming standard is not strictly
enforced; I
> didn't bother changing "offenders" if the name was reasonable.
> But I'm deferring this decision to Jacek / Alexandre as they are the
> drivers of the COM standardization in Wine. I don't mind too much as I
> can work with both patterns.
>
I think the only reasonable naming convention is to name things after
the implementation structure. In this case that would still end up
being "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl_...", but for a slightly different
reason. Where I agree with Nikolay is that "dmloader" would be a much
nicer name than "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl" for the implementation
structure as well, in which case you would also end up with
"dmloader_..." for method implementations.
dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method or dmloader_Method?
dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method
I don't think it's better than it is now.
I was just saying removing the interface name was not a good thing imo
or am I missing something?
Right, the interface name needs to be there as it matches the COBJMACROS
name. Basically the C macro with a prefix.
Why? If you really want to keep interface name the better way imho is as
it's usually done in mshtml, like HTMLDOMTextNode_*,
so here you don't need to add anything like prefix.
bye
michael
