On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:13:22 +0100 Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Dean Michael Am I the only one who thinks adding the type of an identifier to the name is ugly? As in <identifier>_<type> (in this case `tuple_nmsp` or `tuple_lib`)?
I think everyone likes the names without postfixes more, but there's the issue with name clashes. I, on the other hand, avoided the clash of the central class name in my library - constrained - by calling the library Constrained Value and the namespace constrained_value. But in some cases it's not easy to make up a meaningful and not ugly name.
I use the _t suffix for types, when I need a namespace of the same name (and often when I don't too). wchar_t and the int*_t/uint*_t types have made it a fairly accepted practice. I'm ambivalent about it, but it *does* solve the problem. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *