Coding style

[Christopher Key]

Hello,

I've some code which I'd like to release in object form along with a
suitable header. Before I do this however, I'd like to finalise the
exact names for everything declared in the header, and want to make sure
that I make the right choice, both with regards readability and
following existing standards. I was wondering if there are any style
guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:

1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
existing examples are:

gd... and FLAC__...

2) At present, all my function are named along the lines of
xyz_do_somethin g(). The alternatives seems to be xyz_DoSomething or
xyz_doSomething , any precedent?

3) My typdefs are all similarly named, e.g. xyz_my_typdef. Is it
sensible to capitalise these to distinguish them?

4) Typedefs involving structs and the structs themselves are identically
named, e.g.

typdef struct xyz_a xyz_a;

// Later

struct xyz_a {
...
}

is this sensible?
Does anyone have any thoughts on the above, or is it all just down to
personal preference?
Regards,

Chris

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

David Thompson wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:48:47 +0100, Christopher Key <cj***@cam.ac.u k>
wrote:

>><snip: releasing codeI was wondering if there are any style
guides or what peoples opinions are on the following:

1) Everything declared starts with a unique identifier, e.g. xyz_. How
should this be capitalised, and how many trailing underscores. Two
existing examples are:

gd... and FLAC__...

Double underscores are legal in C but not C++.

Says who?

Says ISO/IEC 14882:1998, which contains the following paragraph:

17.4.3.1.2 Global names [lib.global.name s]
1 Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to
the implementation:
- Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins with an
underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the
implementation for any use.

I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
question to comp.lang.c++.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Ian Collins]

Chris Hills wrote:

>>
I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
question to comp.lang.c++.

Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it
like vampires from sun light.

I got this one wrong, it happens. There isn't anything left to say.
--
Ian Collins.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <I7************ *************** ***@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrites

<snip>

>>I suggest that it might be wiser to take further discussion of this
question to comp.lang.c++.

Here we go again... as soon as some one mentions C++ you run from it
like vampires from sun light.

On the contrary, I answered the question fully, and provided appropriate
redirection, should the OP wish to check my answer with C++ experts. That
seems reasonable to me.

Chris, obviously disagreement and discussion are par for the course in
comp.lang.c, but recently it seems that your replies to my articles have
become hostile rather than merely disputational; several have been
childish; and one has been dishonest. I've tried very hard not to see you
as a troll, but I can no longer see how I can justify that.

I'll review the situation in 30 days.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999