Generic Class Naming Convention

[sloan]

I've noticed alot of people tacking on a "T" for a generic abled version of
an older class.

Ex:

1.1 Code

IDataStore
I take it, and while I keep IDataStore around for 2.0 version, I decide to
make a Generic version.

So I see this:

IDataStoreT < T >
Is that something that just developed? Or does it (the naming convention)
come from somewhere?
I've got Brad Abrams book here (Framework Design Guidelines) and it doesn't
speak to the classname specifically, only the parameter type <T>.
Thanks.

[Mythran]

"Bob Powell [MVP]" <bo*@spamkillerbobpowell.netwrote in message
news:15**********************************@microsof t.com...

>I would keep away from such naming. It's not necessary because the template
syntax and signatures are totlly different to those of the straight classes
and such indicative naming schemes are frowned upon, probably because the
schemes change so often that code that uses them can become either
unreadable or confusuing when modifications to the convention orrur.

--
--
Bob Powell [MVP]
Visual C#, System.Drawing

I'm still using .Net 2003 :)

Say you have your own class named "Collection". Can you create a new type
under the same namespace with the same name for a generic, "Collection<T>"?
If not (and Collection was an actual named class that described both
completely with the exception of one is generic), what would you name the
"New" generic "Collection<T>"?

Thanks,
Mythran

[Mythran]

"Mythran" <ki********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:43**********************************@microsof t.com...

>

"Bob Powell [MVP]" <bo*@spamkillerbobpowell.netwrote in message
news:15**********************************@microsof t.com...

>>I would keep away from such naming. It's not necessary because the
template syntax and signatures are totlly different to those of the
straight classes and such indicative naming schemes are frowned upon,
probably because the schemes change so often that code that uses them can
become either unreadable or confusuing when modifications to the
convention orrur.

--
--
Bob Powell [MVP]
Visual C#, System.Drawing

I'm still using .Net 2003 :)

Say you have your own class named "Collection". Can you create a new type
under the same namespace with the same name for a generic,
"Collection<T>"? If not (and Collection was an actual named class that
described both completely with the exception of one is generic), what
would you name the "New" generic "Collection<T>"?

Thanks,
Mythran

Nevermind, I think. I believe Jon answered my question in his reply about 2
minutes after my message lol.

Mythran

[GlennDoten]

Mythran wrote:

Say you have your own class named "Collection". Can you create a new
type under the same namespace with the same name for a generic,
"Collection<T>"? If not (and Collection was an actual named class that
described both completely with the exception of one is generic), what
would you name the "New" generic "Collection<T>"?

Yes, this works fine:

namespace Foo
{
public class Collection { }
public class Collection<T{ }
public class Collection<T1,T2{ }
}

So there's no need to name the generic ones CollectionT<T>. (And what
would you name the second generic one above anyhow? CollectionTT?)

--
-glenn-

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mythran <ki********@hotmail.comwrote:

Say you have your own class named "Collection". Can you create a new type
under the same namespace with the same name for a generic, "Collection<T>"?

Yes, you can. Indeed, the System namespace in .NET 2.0 has the
Nullable<Tstruct and the Nullable class.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Mythran <ki********@hotmail.comwrote:

Nevermind, I think. I believe Jon answered my question in his reply about 2
minutes after my message lol.

But hey, that hasn't stopped me from answering it again ;)

(Note to self: read all messages before starting to reply...)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too