thisIsAMemberFunctionName vs this_is_a_member_function_name

**jbruno4000** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

I think it's important we all follow the same namming convention which is to
capitalize the first letter of each new word in the name as opposed to an
underscore. It's also important the function name suggests the action it
performs.i.e.

GetPrimeNumbers ();
SortList();

JB

**Jack Klein** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

On 10 Nov 2003 01:47:10 GMT, jbruno4000@aol. com (jbruno4000) wrote in
comp.lang.c++:
[color=blue]
> I think it's important we all follow the same namming convention which is to
> capitalize the first letter of each new word in the name as opposed to an
> underscore. It's also important the function name suggests the action it
> performs.i.e.
>
> GetPrimeNumbers ();
> SortList();
>
> JB[/color]

Yes, but why do you feel that it is important not to have underscores?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

**Erik Max Francis** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

Slash wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name[/color]

It is purely a stylistic issue, although the Standard Library prefers
the latter form.

Like almost all stylistic issues, it is far better to be consistent with
the other code on your team rather than to doing something uniquely
clever.

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Too much agreement kills a chat.
\__/ Eldridge Cleaver

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**lilburne** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

Slash wrote:[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name
>
>
> Although most books and eminent authors (like Herb Sutter) recommend
> the first approach, I certainly feel the second leads to more readable
> names. In fact the STL itself uses the second naming convention.
>
> Why then is the first convention usually recommended?
>
> I understand that all this is strictly a matter of personal taste, but
> since most of you guys here are pros, what do you all prefer?
>[/color]

The second version for function names, the first for class
names. Why because it is our house style. Otherwise it
doesn't matter. What does matter is that you stick to one
style or at the very least one style per class.

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Stephan Br?nnimann** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

debajit1@hotmai l.com (Slash) wrote in message news:<341c1613. 0311090823.39be a7bd@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name
>
>
> Although most books and eminent authors (like Herb Sutter) recommend
> the first approach, I certainly feel the second leads to more readable
> names. In fact the STL itself uses the second naming convention.
>
> Why then is the first convention usually recommended?
>
> I understand that all this is strictly a matter of personal taste, but
> since most of you guys here are pros, what do you all prefer?[/color]

I prefer the first format. It doesn't really matter however, you'll get used
to it very quickly:
to make sure the whole team uses the same style is much more important.

Stephan

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Tahir Hashmi** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

debajit1@hotmai l.com (Slash) wrote in message news:<341c1613. 0311090823.39be a7bd@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name[/color]

Here's a coding convention that I follow:

* Capitalize class names LikeThis
* Use camel notation for methods sayLikeThis()
* Use all lowercase for variables like_this

Though the last style is most readable, the names quickly get too
long. So I prefer using that for the variables. Also, since most
method invocations are preceeded by a -> or ., the method names stand
out despite the starting character being in lower case. As for class
names - the capitalization has just stuck on :)

--
Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST)

codemartial.org - codemartial Resources and Information.

http://www.codemartial.org

codemartial.org is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, codemartial.org has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

tahir AT ncst.ernet.in

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Rolf Magnus** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

Slash wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?[/color]

No.
[color=blue]
> Which one should I prefer
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name[/color]

It depends. If your program is mainly based on a library or you are
writing additions to existing programs, use the one they used. If
you're doing something on your own, do what you prefer.
I think the first is used more often, and most often, I'm using it too.
[color=blue]
> Although most books and eminent authors (like Herb Sutter) recommend
> the first approach, I certainly feel the second leads to more readable
> names. In fact the STL itself uses the second naming convention.
>
> Why then is the first convention usually recommended?[/color]

I don't know why it is recommended, but I don't consider one to be more
or less readable than the other. This might depend on the font of your
text editor though.
[color=blue]
> I understand that all this is strictly a matter of personal taste, but
> since most of you guys here are pros, what do you all prefer?[/color]

I'm not sure that I'd already count as a pro, but one thing that you can
easily see in your example is that the names get a bit shorter using
the first method.

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Jason Carucci** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

I prefer the first because typing an underscore takes a little more
time. The underscore is a little off to the right and requires you to
move your hands to get to the key. If you just use letters, you can
type much faster.

In article <341c1613.03110 90823.39bea7bd@ posting.google. com>, Slash
<debajit1@hotma il.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name
>
>
> Although most books and eminent authors (like Herb Sutter) recommend
> the first approach, I certainly feel the second leads to more readable
> names. In fact the STL itself uses the second naming convention.
>
> Why then is the first convention usually recommended?
>
> I understand that all this is strictly a matter of personal taste, but
> since most of you guys here are pros, what do you all prefer?[/color]

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Rolf Magnus** · Jul 19 '05, 08:08 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

jbruno4000 wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think it's important we all follow the same namming convention which
> is to capitalize the first letter of each new word in the name
> as opposed to an underscore.[/color]

And for what reason do you think that?
[color=blue]
> It's also important the function name suggests the action it
> performs.i.e.[/color]

Of course. Although calling them something like f1() to f2341() might be
fun if you love obfuscating your code :-)
[color=blue]
> GetPrimeNumbers ();
> SortList();
>
> JB[/color]

**Jack Klein** · Jul 19 '05, 08:09 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

On 9 Nov 2003 17:54:10 -0500, debajit1@hotmai l.com (Slash) wrote in
comp.lang.c++:
[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name
>
>
> Although most books and eminent authors (like Herb Sutter) recommend
> the first approach, I certainly feel the second leads to more readable
> names. In fact the STL itself uses the second naming convention.
>
> Why then is the first convention usually recommended?
>
> I understand that all this is strictly a matter of personal taste, but
> since most of you guys here are pros, what do you all prefer?[/color]

My personal preference is to have the underscores, whether or not you
capitalize the individual words or "wordlets".

I have notices that many C and C++ programmers do not seem to mind
underscores in variable names, but for some reason don't think they
should appear in function names.

My theory for their preference rests on two thoughts:

1. A long time ago, unique characters in identifier names were very
limited, to as little as 6 characters and a single case in early C
implementations .

2. The Windows API, which was written to be called by name from
languages like BASIC and Pascal and others that do not permit
underscores in identifier names, so defines all functions in
CamelCaseMode.

Interestingly enough, none of the programmers who allow underscores in
variable, enumeration, type, and macro identifiers but don't like them
in function names agree with my reasoning, even though some of them
have extensive Windows programming experience. But none of them has
ever proposed an alternate theory, either.

I have heard of studies alleging to prove that underscores improve
recognition greatly, but don't have any links handy.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**Nicola Musatti** · Jul 19 '05, 08:09 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

debajit1@hotmai l.com (Slash) wrote in message news:<341c1613. 0311090823.39be a7bd@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Is there any "standard" naming convention for member functions?
> Which one should I prefer?
>
> thisIsAMemberFu nctionName
> vs
> this_is_a_membe r_function_name[/color]

In a sense a standard exists, in that the standard library uses the
second convention you describe. Apart from that, however, everyone has
his/her own favourite style, to the point that endless debates take
place periodically in this and other newsgroups. As I don't feel like
participating in such a debate today, I'll stick to "agnostic" advice:
Be consistent in your own code and try to agree to a project wide
standard. Which one doesn't matter much (unless you're working on a
project with me, in which case MY favourite style is the only possible
choice :-)

Cheers,
nicolaMusatti ;-)

[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.m oderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

**jbruno4000** · Jul 19 '05, 08:09 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

I just like the idea of everybody following the same naming convention. It all
comes down to personal preference.

**Rolf Magnus** · Jul 19 '05, 08:10 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

jbruno4000 wrote:
[color=blue]
> I just like the idea of everybody following the same naming
> convention.[/color]

That might be a nice thing, but why do you think that it's so important
that it's the one you use? Just because you're too lazy to change? ;-)

**jbruno4000** · Jul 19 '05, 08:10 PM

Re: thisIsAMemberFu nctionName vs this_is_a_membe r_function_name

This conversation has truly exausted itself!

thisIsAMemberFunctionName vs this_is_a_member_function_name

thisIsAMemberFunctionName vs this_is_a_member_function_name

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment