From: Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes?
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:13:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: 2004-02-04T09:13:45+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <slrnc21du8.290.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: MPG.1a8a2399b416094998968f@news.sover.net
On 2004-02-04, Peter C Chapin <pchapin@sover.net> wrote:
>
> Okay, so in other words either approach is considered acceptable by the
> community at large. It's a matter of style. At least that's the
> impression I get from your reply. Does that sound like a fair
> assessment?
My advice is to use senisble names for the types in the packages and try
to avoid using the "use" statement for the packages you built yourself.
--
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
language."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-04 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 23:52 Naming convention for classes? Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 0:27 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 2:31 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 8:57 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-04 11:52 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 14:02 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-05 12:18 ` Stuart Palin
2004-02-04 14:13 ` Martin Krischik
2004-02-04 9:13 ` Preben Randhol [this message]
2004-02-04 14:57 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-02-04 19:01 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 8:06 ` tmoran
2004-02-04 11:49 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 12:36 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 12:41 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:09 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox