[cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables

[Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x)]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Bo Persson <bop at gmb.dk> wrote:
> 
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chandler Carruth
> To: Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x)
> Cc: Argyrios Kyrtzidis ; clang-dev Developers
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) <wan at google.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, this seems to have not followed the thread, but here was my
>> > comment:
>> >
>> > http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041/diff/1/docs/CodingStandards.html#newcode801
>> > docs/CodingStandards.html:801: camel case (e.g. <tt>TextFileReader</tt>
>> > and <tt>isLValue</tt>).
>> > I would really prefer some stylistic difference between variables and
>> > types/functions. This is mostly a problem (for me) with local variables,
>> > where having some signifier of the locality helps me in reading it.
>>
>> Agreed.  That's why types start with upper-case while variables start
>> with lower-case in my proposal.
>
> This however leaves no distinction between functions and variables. I
> suppose this isn't a terrible compromise because of the ()s, but I would
> like it best to have a different style for each.
>
>
> What if the variable is an function object?

I would really appreciate it if we could focus on the high-level
picture for the initial version of the rule.  Given the complexity of
C++, we'll always be able to find corner cases that the rule doesn't
handle well, whatever rule we decide to use.  As I mentioned in my
initial post, my goal is to set up a baseline now and tweak it later
based on feedback from actually using the rule.

Thanks,
-- 
Zhanyong