From: Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for constructor functions
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-03-21T18:31:21-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <683eb707-a70b-4858-b20e-93cdb5f44044@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5f1f42a3-31ea-4bac-8e3e-29483474e282@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com
On Mar 12, 11:15 am, Lucretia <lucret...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
That's interesting. After teaching many beginning programmers I
finaly figured out that if I tell them to name procedures as verbs and
functions as nouns, they more quickly catch on as to the difference.
Therefore I claim there is a lot to recommend New_T as more
intuitive. It also agrees with the allocator syntax.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-22 1:31 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
2008-03-22 1:31 ` Gene [this message]
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