[bind10-dev] BIND 9 style guidelines

[Christos Zoulas]

On Sep 1, 11:49pm, jinmei at isc.org (JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKE) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: [bind10-dev] BIND 9 style guidelines

| At Wed, 2 Sep 2009 05:06:31 +0000,
| Evan Hunt <each at isc.org> wrote:
| 
| > > - Naming convention (especially) for class members.  There seems to be
| > >   two popular variants:
| > 
| > I *much* prefer lower_case_with_underscores, as I find it much easier to
| > read than intraWordCapitalization.  This grows ever more important as
| > my eyes age.
| > 
| > Most C++ projects I've looked at in the past, though, seem to use the
| > interCapStyle.  I had been assuming we would do the same simply because
| > it appears to be the standard idiom of the language we're working in.
| > But if it's open for discussion... I would *really* like it if we
| > standardized on lower_case_with_underscores.
| 
| I forgot to say that, but I have the same impression that
| "interCapStyle" is seemingly more popular.  But XORP generally uses
| lower_case_with_underscores.
| 
| Note also that I specially meant class *members*.  As far as I can see
| class *names* always follow the "InterCapStyle" convention (I is also
| capitalized).
| 
| class InterCapStyle { // mostly unanimous.  no interCapStyle or inter_cap_style
| public
| 	int interCapMember;  // this seems to be more popular
| 	int lower_case_member; // but this is also adopted by some
| };

I think int _interCapMember; or int interCapMember_; is even more popular.

christos