On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 18:39:23 +0300, Gerrit Renker wrote: > I have a question/suggestion for DCCP/CCID field names, which have a > tendency to grow into really_quite_long_strings. The convention for > field members seems to be > > "x"->"x"_<fieldname> > The problem is that this naming convention has no apparent benefits: > > * which struct is used is evident from the context and need not be > encoded > * someone reading the code is only interested in the fieldnames I think reusing bits from structure name in field names is partly traditional, partly ignorant. When I first took a look at DCCP's code, I found the "x_" prefix somewhat explanatory, but it soon became annoyance I would just have to live with. > Hence my suggestion is to reduce the replicated "x" field prefix, so > that field members become shorter, as will be expressions, and the > code would be easier to read. > > What is the opinion of other developers / maintainer regarding this? I agree, the prefixes are unnecessary. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
