Caps convention.

[Malcolm]

Use all lower case for ansi c functions, and Capitalise For
Platform-Specific.

If you call something with caps, then your function name requires caps
itself.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 20 Dec 2003 20:15:59 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Alexander Bartolich
<al************ *****@gmx.at> wrote:

begin E. Robert Tisdale:

These aren't really styles. The are typing shortcuts
for programmers with a missing shift key.
The idea was that because capital letters and underscore
required the programmer to hold down the shift key,
they slowed down typing (meaning productivity).

And how do you get an underscore without pressing shift?

By using the right keyboard. Not all keyboards have the same layout as
your current (possibly Austrian) one. Some keyboards used to lack the
angles <>, others lacked square brackets, at signs etc. Some Mac ones
still do lack a hash #.
All the world's not a VT102 you know...
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Alexander Bartolich]

begin Mark McIntyre:

And how do you get an underscore without pressing shift?
By using the right keyboard. Not all keyboards have the same layout as
your current (possibly Austrian) one.

Nope. I do enjoy fast access to square, curly and angle brackets.

http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub..._UNIX_Kbd.html
[...] All the world's not a VT102 you know...

In the good old times, when real men wrote their own termcap entries...

--
Für Google, Tux und GPL!

[Mark McIntyre]

On 21 Dec 2003 01:05:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Alexander Bartolich
<al************ *****@gmx.at> wrote:

begin Mark McIntyre:

And how do you get an underscore without pressing shift?

By using the right keyboard. Not all keyboards have the same layout as
your current (possibly Austrian) one.

Nope. I do enjoy fast access to square, curly and angle brackets.

If you reread my post, you'll notice that I didn't say whether you
did, or did not have that. Nor, frankly do I care.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.c om/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc. html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Thomas Stegen]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Quite so. But since we're being so public about it at present, my own
preference is xyz_CamelCase for function names and parameter names in the
xyz library (or, perhaps, the library for which xyz is a suitable
contraction or abbreviation), SEPARATED_UPPER _CASE for type names and
macros, and whatever I feel like for local identifiers.

Which reminds me. I wouls like to see namespaces in C. Just a very
simple thing, nothing very fancy.

Putting something in a namespace.
Accessing the namespace explicitly.
Maybe a way of setting the namespace currently being used.

As simple as that.

What do people think?

--
Thomas.

[Alexander Bartolich]

begin Thomas Stegen:

Which reminds me. I wouls like to see namespaces in C.
Just a very simple thing, nothing very fancy.

No, it ain't not simple.

Eventually all symbols end up in one global scope, the symbol table
of the linker. C++ uses a technique called mangled names to work
around this. Think of it as an automatic translation of std::string
to _std_string or something similar, only that C++ also adds argument
types to that.

The net effect are almost unreadable map files, linking problems
between object code from different compilers, additional syntax to
switch back to old behaviour (extern "C"), and increased resource
demands for the linker.

You can use C++ as A Better C (TM), if you like.
The ecological niche of C is bare bones programming, though.

--
Für Google, Tux und GPL!

[Alexander Bartolich]

begin Mark McIntyre:

If you reread my post, you'll notice that I didn't say whether you
did, or did not have that. Nor, frankly do I care.

Thomas Matthews wrote:
# These aren't really styles. The are typing shortcuts
# for programmers with a missing shift key.
# The idea was that because capital letters and underscore
# required the programmer to hold down the shift key,
# they slowed down typing (meaning productivity).

I think that's an urban legend.

--
Für Google, Tux und GPL!

[CBFalconer]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

<al************ *****@gmx.at> wrote:

.... snip ...

Nope. I do enjoy fast access to square, curly and angle brackets.

If you reread my post, you'll notice that I didn't say whether you
did, or did not have that. Nor, frankly do I care.

You cruel unfeeling beast.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Joe Wright]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
>
> Use all lower case for [ANSI C] functions, and Capitalise For
> Platform-Specific.
>
> If you call something with caps, then your function name requires caps
> itself.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this requires you to define your entry
point as Main() - and then it won't link.

Only if your main function is Platform-Specific.

Or if it /calls/ something Platform-Specific, according to Malcolm.

<snip>

FWIW, except for Malcolm's miscapitalizati on of the terms "ANSI C",
I basically agree with his statement. I just don't think it really
needed to be broadcast to the world, any more than it would be
appropriate to start a new thread in alt.usage.engli sh to say,
"Start a new paragraph when there's a new speaker," or in comp.programmin g
to point out that the worst-case running time of Quicksort is O(n^2).
Those who care, already know.

Quite so. But since we're being so public about it at present, my own
preference is xyz_CamelCase for function names and parameter names in the
xyz library (or, perhaps, the library for which xyz is a suitable
contraction or abbreviation), SEPARATED_UPPER _CASE for type names and
macros, and whatever I feel like for local identifiers.

If I declare a function..
void * Malloc(size_t);
...the compiler is not confused at all. It knows that Malloc is not
malloc. But what about the linker? Are the symbols and symbol tables
used in linking alse case sensitive? Can I declare Malloc in one
translation unit and define it in another and be ensured that they will
link?
--
Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Richard Heathfield]

Joe Wright wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

But since we're being so public about it at present, my own
preference is xyz_CamelCase for function names and parameter names in the
xyz library (or, perhaps, the library for which xyz is a suitable
contraction or abbreviation), SEPARATED_UPPER _CASE for type names and
macros, and whatever I feel like for local identifiers.

If I declare a function..
void * Malloc(size_t);
..the compiler is not confused at all. It knows that Malloc is not
malloc. But what about the linker? Are the symbols and symbol tables
used in linking alse case sensitive? Can I declare Malloc in one
translation unit and define it in another and be ensured that they will
link?

In C90, you can't be sure.

"The implementation may further restrict the significance of an external
name (an identifier that has external linkage) to six characters and may
ignore distinctions of alphabetical case for such names."

ISTR that this restriction has been removed (or at least, /effectively/
removed) in C99.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Nudge]

Alexander Bartolich wrote:

Thomas Matthews wrote:
# These aren't really styles. The are typing shortcuts
# for programmers with a missing shift key.
# The idea was that because capital letters and underscore
# required the programmer to hold down the shift key,
# they slowed down typing (meaning productivity).

It was Tisdale who said that.