From: Lucretia <lucretia9@lycos.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for constructor functions
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-03-12T08:15:04-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f1f42a3-31ea-4bac-8e3e-29483474e282@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: cac99227-81e0-4f47-b857-c064bb04d973@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com
On Mar 12, 1:43 pm, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can also imagine Create_T, Construct_T, etc., but Make_T seems to be
> the shortest while still conveying the meaning properly. Is it also
> most widely used?
IIRC, the style guide mentions both Make_T and Create_T. I can image
Constructor_T being a pain to type after a while, the first 2 convey
meaning and are short, so I'd pick one of those.
Luke.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-12 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-12 13:43 Naming convention for constructor functions Maciej Sobczak
2008-03-12 15:15 ` Lucretia [this message]
2008-03-22 1:31 ` Gene
2008-03-22 13:01 ` Georg Bauhaus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox