2012/11/8 Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com>
On 8 November 2012 00:22, Michael Stefaniuc <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?
I was just saying removing the interface name was not a good thing imo or am I missing something?