On 11/08/2012 03:44 PM, Christian Costa wrote:
2012/11/8 Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani@redhat.com mailto:mstefani@redhat.com>
On 11/08/2012 01:13 PM, Christian Costa wrote: > > > 2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com <mailto:hverbeet@gmail.com> <mailto:hverbeet@gmail.com <mailto:hverbeet@gmail.com>>> > > On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani@redhat.com <mailto:mstefani@redhat.com> > <mailto:mstefani@redhat.com <mailto:mstefani@redhat.com>>> wrote: > > But using just the capitalized letters from the name of the COM > class as > > a prefix and skipping the "Impl" would be in hindsight the better > > standard. There are still 170+ COM interfaces to clean up which is a > > sizable number regardless of it being just 13% of the total interface > > implementations, so we could still change the standard, especially as > > the existing function/method naming standard is not strictly > enforced; I > > didn't bother changing "offenders" if the name was reasonable. > > But I'm deferring this decision to Jacek / Alexandre as they are the > > drivers of the COM standardization in Wine. I don't mind too much as I > > can work with both patterns. > > > I think the only reasonable naming convention is to name things after > the implementation structure. In this case that would still end up > being "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl_...", but for a slightly different > reason. Where I agree with Nikolay is that "dmloader" would be a much > nicer name than "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl" for the implementation > structure as well, in which case you would also end up with > "dmloader_..." for method implementations. > > > dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method or dmloader_Method? dmloader_IDirectMusicLoader_Method
Henri said the other. It seems there is no consensus. ;)
Of course there is consensus. The consensus is: - "It depends on the situation" - "There are acceptable naming conventions" - "IDirectMusicLoaderImpl_IDirectMusicLoader_QueryInterface is not one of the acceptable solutions" :)
bye michael