On Monday 02 February 2015 12:05:13 Jon A. Cruz wrote: > > For C++, I think Iotivity:: is the correct namespace, but I'd remove the > > current OC prefix (that is what namespaces are for!). > > > > > > Again, I agree and dropping prefixing would match C++ conventions. > Subjectively I personally like lower-case namespaces better for C++. > Among other things that matches common C++ libraries such as STL, Boost, > etc.
To match the Standard Library and Boost, we should also begin using names_with_underscore, which we don't. Instead, we're following more the Java / Qt model with CamelCase names and where types always start with a capital letter. Sudarshan wrote: > My suggestion is to wait for the connectivity-abstraction branch to be > merged with master and then do these changes. Otherwise, it will add > complexity in merging those two branches. Agreed. The fewer branches outstanding, the smaller the surface. That said, should we begin using the new style for any new code? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
