An opinion on naming
-
I did not wrap the queue. I implemented my own queue over an array, wrapping like Microsoft's class does.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Yeah, that really seems the best, and most labor and time intensive method, for something so easy that could've been there at no extra effort :sigh:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Yeah, that really seems the best, and most labor and time intensive method, for something so easy that could've been there at no extra effort :sigh:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
LOL, blame microsoft. I really shouldn't have had to reinvent the wheel here.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I need a replacement for Microsoft's Queue that allows for efficient indexed access to the items therein. So I made one. The trouble is, I don't know what to name it. By default, containers in .NET are implemented on arrays (like mine is) so since .NET 2.0 things like ArrayList have simply become (Implied Array)List - indicating array storage unless otherwise specified or there is no default array storage implementation (like with binary trees). The reason this comes up is because of things like LinkedList So while I'd name mine ArrayQueue that itself is inconsistent with microsoft's naming conventions post 1.x Queue itself conflicts but it's what it's currently named. I've made the interface compatible but put it under a different namespace. I'm kind of leaning toward this. Another option I considered was ListQueue because it provides indexed access, but that doesn't really jibe with microsoft's naming conventions either. To be honest, I wish Microsoft would have simply exposed the internal method they have in the reference source in order to provide indexed access. Seems silly that they didn't, since queues are ordered by definition, but whatever.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
"... but that doesn't really jibe with microsoft's naming conventions either." That is of zero concern for me. I couldn't care less what their conventions are. Mostly because I detest what they have done with the Win32 SDK names of structures and members. I'll use what ever convention(s) I feel like using. Here's one example : they continue to use this long pointer prefixing "LP..." on things. We haven't had to deal with long pointers since the 32-bit SDK came into being. The whole large-model programming thing was horrendous and I resent being reminded of it. For this reason, I never, ever use a LP prefix for anything. For the items I access that have to use it I always make a typedef to avoid it.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
"... but that doesn't really jibe with microsoft's naming conventions either." That is of zero concern for me. I couldn't care less what their conventions are. Mostly because I detest what they have done with the Win32 SDK names of structures and members. I'll use what ever convention(s) I feel like using. Here's one example : they continue to use this long pointer prefixing "LP..." on things. We haven't had to deal with long pointers since the 32-bit SDK came into being. The whole large-model programming thing was horrendous and I resent being reminded of it. For this reason, I never, ever use a LP prefix for anything. For the items I access that have to use it I always make a typedef to avoid it.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Well they're of concern to me, which is why I brought them up. And as far as Win32 goes, it's not .NET where naming is concerned. Entirely different ballgame.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
I need a replacement for Microsoft's Queue that allows for efficient indexed access to the items therein. So I made one. The trouble is, I don't know what to name it. By default, containers in .NET are implemented on arrays (like mine is) so since .NET 2.0 things like ArrayList have simply become (Implied Array)List - indicating array storage unless otherwise specified or there is no default array storage implementation (like with binary trees). The reason this comes up is because of things like LinkedList So while I'd name mine ArrayQueue that itself is inconsistent with microsoft's naming conventions post 1.x Queue itself conflicts but it's what it's currently named. I've made the interface compatible but put it under a different namespace. I'm kind of leaning toward this. Another option I considered was ListQueue because it provides indexed access, but that doesn't really jibe with microsoft's naming conventions either. To be honest, I wish Microsoft would have simply exposed the internal method they have in the reference source in order to provide indexed access. Seems silly that they didn't, since queues are ordered by definition, but whatever.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
-
Well they're of concern to me, which is why I brought them up. And as far as Win32 goes, it's not .NET where naming is concerned. Entirely different ballgame.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
Yes, I know those are different things, but my point is/was microsoft has changed directions with naming conventions so many times that I can't care less about conforming to their standards.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Yes, I know those are different things, but my point is/was microsoft has changed directions with naming conventions so many times that I can't care less about conforming to their standards.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
I can totally understand that. I'm a little more forgiving I guess. Or I just see different naming patterns to be appropriate in different contexts - I switch up myself. In fact, in C++ I have a few different naming and coding styles and conventions I use depending on the particular "realm" I'm coding in. Different languages, different conventions, too. But that's me. To each their own.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
