Re: generic programming: (in?)compatibility of CamelCase and snake_case
On 2008-03-22 21:44, Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Some people who clearly understand generic programming (probably a
good deal better than I do) seem to prefer CamelCase, even when
trying to interoperate with the C++ standard library. One striking
example is Andrei's book Modern C++ Design. What is the reason for
using CamelCase? Since static identifiers effectively define the
interface supported by each type, how is syntactic compatibility
maintained between CamelCase libraries and the snake_case STL?
What does a naming convention have to do with syntax? As long as
any identifier is valid and not a reserved one (which a convention
like CamelCase would ensure), what would be the objection to using
it?
For instance, in your own container-like classes, would you call the
iterators "iterator" and "const_iterator" or "Iterator"
and "ConstIterator"? The first convention has the advantage that generic
programs using "typename ContainerType::iterator" will work seamlessly with
containers from STL and your own containers.
This is really more a question about making your class conform to a
certain interface than anything else, you have the same problem if your
class derives from some other class that uses some other convention. As
for making you code work with standard library templates I think that
the next version of the standard will have something concept maps which
will solve this issue.
--
Erik Wikstr??m