Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Naming Conventions Message-ID: <70088@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 17 Jan 91 18:01:19 GMT References: <60352@microsoft.UUCP> <278D1767.505@tct.uucp> <1991Jan12.225851.6764@usenet@scion.CS.ORST.EDU> Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 22 In article <1991Jan12.225851.6764@usenet@scion.CS.ORST.EDU> keffert@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Thomas Keffer) writes: |Indeed! In fact, there are more subtle differences between the various types |of complex than their names: some pass arguments by reference into functions, |some by value, etc. This matters when one must pass a pointer to the |function for use by "forEach" functions iterating over vector elements, etc. Good point, I had not thought of this problem. In any case, if we are to have standardized libraries, then they represent in some sense extensions to the language, and should have agreed upon names and interfaces. If we agree not to agree on these things, well, then we have an agreement -- but not a standard. My interest in naming conventions came from considering what design decisions _cannot_ be encapsulated within a class, and the answer seems to be mainly class names and interface protocols, though exception handling and memory management issues are sure to be involved too. I don't think people should under-estimate the difficulty in resolving these issues. It seems like every different organization chooses a different style of programming in C++ -- and swears that their approach is _the one true way_