yade-users team mailing list archive

[Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, I missed the fact that the model have 4 spheres.

Personnaly I still prefer the old naming, probably because i'm used to it...
Yes it results in long name, but any conventions suggested up to now 
needs the autocompletion enabled, so... is length a problem?
This old convention is the most easy to understand IMO, and it makes 
yade readable for beginners.
Perhaps it is possible to replace uppercases by _lowercases if you don't 
like CamelCases... keeping the rest of the convention intact.

Bruno



Janek Kozicki a écrit :

>Bruno Chareyre said:     (by the date of Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:16:49 +0100)
>
>  
>
>>>That will make the class names much shorter and more readable. Also
>>>I'm in favour to switching into lowercase names with underscore. And
>>>stop using CamelCase. Consider this class name for example, which
>>>name is better:
>>>
>>> InteractingMyTetrahedron2InteractingBox4InteractionOfMyTetrahedron
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>> big_4_spheres_AND_big_box_TO_ig_4x4_spheres
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, it took me several minutes to understand the second convention 
>>(and still not sure what 4x4 means)... so i'd prefer to stick with the 
>>first one ;).
>>Or if you want a simplest naming convention, why not :
>>
>>big_spheres_AND_big_box_TO_ig_spheres
>>
>>Is one information missing compared to 
>>"big_4_spheres_AND_big_box_TO_ig_4x4_spheres"?
>>    
>>
>
>
>Good point Bruno!
>
>So we will prohibit using numbers in class names. My intention was to
>say that class has a name:
>
> big_four_spheres          - this geometrical model has four spheres
>
>and 
> 
> ig_four_by_four_spheres   - this interaction geometry is an
>interaction between four and four spheres, making a 4x4 matrix with
>16 elements. But we can pick a shorter name as well... maybe
>"ig_between_four_spheres" or "ig_of_four_spheres", I think that
>"ig_four_spheres" will be a confusing name, because it has 16
>elements inside, not four.
>
>I don't know what is better, please tell again if you like the
>switch into those kind of naming:
>
>big_four_spheres_AND_big_box_TO_ig_of_four_spheres
>
>or
>
>big_four_spheres_2_big_box_4_ig_of_four_spheres
>
>or
>
>BIG_FourSpheres_2_BIG_Box_4_IG_OfFourSpheres
>
>(I don't like mixing underscore with CamelCase)
>
>or
>
>BIGFourSpheres_2_BIGBox_4_IGOfFourSpheres
>
>(only underscore at _2_ and _4_)
>
>BIGFourSpheres_AND_BIGBox_TO_IGOfFourSpheres
>
>BIGFourSpheresANDBIGBoxTOIGOfFourSpheres
>
>
>Or maybe you prefer to stay with the old naming convention? I really
>don't know...
>
>my motivation for such renaming:
>
> - using underscore is helpful with wery long names. Because a name
>longer than 20 characters without a single space inside is difficult
>to read.
>
> - so if we decided that using underscores is helpful and want to use
>them, then we should be consequent about that, and use them
>everywhere instead of CamelCase, otherwise people will not know
>whether they should use _ or big letter. And will have to look it up
>in the particular class name.
>
> - the C++ standard library std:: and widely used in yade boost::
>libraries use underscore in their naming. So we become a 'little more
>standard' :>
>
> - and the idea to use bgm_ big_ ig_, etc is just to have shorter
>class names.
>
>
>
>The problem is that bgm_ ig_, etc prefixes conflict with CamelCase
>convention, like in this class name:
>
>BIGFourSpheres
>
>is it "BIG" or "BIGF" ?
>
>
>big_FourSpheres
>
>with underscore, and rest is CamelCase ? That will be confusing,
>because someone unfamiliar will not know where to expect underscore
>and where not expect it.
>
>So how do you think?
>
>
>  
>


-- 
_______________
Chareyre Bruno
Maître de conférence

Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble
Laboratoire 3S (Soils Solids Structures) - bureau I08
BP 53 - 38041, Grenoble cedex 9 - France     
Tél : 04.56.52.86.21
________________

_______________________________________________
Yade-users mailing list
Yade-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/yade-users