On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:05 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> writes: > > I initially attempted an underscore_based_naming_convention but quickly > > found it difficult to get concise function names, so I switched to a > > CamelCaseBased_NamingConvention with an underscore separating a notional > > namespace element from a secondary element, which saved plenty of space. > > Just use the same names, but with underscore separated (lowercase) words > instead of StuDLyCapS; obviously they won't be significantly longer, but > will maintain gcc naming conventions, and will more readable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I greatly prefer CamelCase, but it's clear that I'm in the minority here.
I'll assume that it can be fixed using sed at some point; how we spell the API is a minor surface detail compared to much deeper issues like lifetimes/ownership of objects, the scope of the API, stability guarantees or lack thereof etc
