Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!boring!jack
From: jack@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: more about programming style
Message-ID: <6521@boring.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 15:04:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.6521
Posted: Fri Jul 19 15:04:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 01:15:28 EDT
References: <11457@brl-tgr.ARPA> <68@ucbcad.UUCP> <505@scc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 29
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL

In article <505@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes:
>
>	I think that standards of correctness are determined
>by the massive amount of existing C.   The ++ convention is
>easy for me to understand.   An example is variable names.
>People who come from other backgrounds than C programming
>often use long variable names, for instance:  
>
>	char	*name_array[];
>	int	name_array_index
>
>A C programmer might declare
>
>	char	*names[];
>	int	i;
This is clearly untrue. With the exception of COBOL programmers (who
aren't real programmers anyway:-) there is probably no difference
in the way people choose variable names. If there is, probably the
C programmers choose clearer names. Upper/lower case was in C right
from the start, remember?

Also, I think that after some years of experience, most people come
to a naming scheme where they use names like i,j,p and q 
for index variables and the like, and more
elaborate names for other things. It depends on taste whether you use
"names", "name_array", "UserNames", or whatever.
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
	The shell is my oyster.