[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: [API] Flake class names
From:       Jaroslaw S <kexipl () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-12-05 12:48:27
Message-ID: 56a746380912050448k17c7fbc0n4ffbddf51a31acf7 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/12/5 Johannes Simon <johannes.simon@gmail.com>:
> Woot, replying to myself. I like doing that.
>
> I realize that my previously suggested policy would cause confision,
> because in general, a base class does not have to be abstract.
>
> In contrast to that, the following policy should be rather obvious:
> 1) Classes you must subclass to use should get the prefix "Abstract"
> 2) For classes you can use directly, but that are also encouraged to
> subclass, use "Base"

Not only I dont disagree but this is exactly good idea.

Another suffix is Interface. Not in kolibs but I have some of these
things used in kexi internal api.
Is the use of Interface redundant or is it the third case and we add
it to the guidelines?
Kdelibs use the suffix.

-- 
regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek
 Kexi & KOffice (http://www.kexi-project.org, http://www.koffice.org)
 KDE Libraries for MS Windows (http://windows.kde.org)
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]