"Eligiusz Narutowicz" <eligiuszdotnaru@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvuonn$6se$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "cr88192" <cr88192@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
<snip>
>>
>> well, as noted, it is a lot more common in C IME, but it is almost
never
>> done in C++.
>>
>> however, I have personally seen a lot more code with the parens than
>> without
>> the parens...
>
>
> I agree with people who write real apps accessed by many peoples. And
> these are:
>
> It is clear and it works.
>
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5780
I will agree with this for the most part, as a general rule the Linux
codebase is fairly readable.
however, I do disagree with it on a few points, namely in that I tend to
use
rather different naming conventions (including, on occasion, variants of
hungarian notation, including in function names...).
I do agree that globals should be avoided whenever possible, and
especially
not be used between subsystems. however, even there, this is not absolute
(there are some rare cases where I believe this is acceptable).
I tend to encode in the names at least some info about where in the
codebase
the code is located, and also because of my modularity practices (this
helps
both in avoiding accidental clashes or dependencies, and also in locating
where some particular code is at in the project).
of course, newer languages (such as C++, C#, Java, ...) provide other
mechanisms for this, but it is a tradeoff (shorter easier names, of which
one is no longer certain where exactly in the codebase this function is
located, albeit "jump to" features and similar are common in modern
IDE's).
it works...
|
