Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] CODING_STYLE: Define how to handle acronyms in CamelCase

[Alex Williamson]

On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 16:59 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Alex Williamson <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > When creating structure names in CamelCase, it's easy to have
> > back-to-back capitals when using acronyms (ex. PCIINTxRoutingNotifier,
> > QEMUSGList, VFIOINTx).  In the worst case these can look like macros,
> > but even adjoining a single, all-caps acronym makes it more difficult
> > to interpret.  For example, is PCIIntxRoutingNotifier sufficiently
> > more clear?  Mixing case, such as VFIOintx isn't truly CamelCase.
> > Therefore let's abandon all-caps acronyms in CamelCase, resulting in
> > PciIntxRoutingNotifier, QemuSgList, VfioIntx.
> >
> > Cc: Michael Tsirkin <address@hidden>
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >
> > This is an attempt to formalize and get agreement on name changes
> > suggested for the vfio-pci driver.  VFIO is very prone to these naming
> > problems.  I don't expect to do any massive code churn to correct
> > these, but I will update vfio-pci to whatever outcome we decide and at
> > least we'll have a reference rather than per maintainer policy.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >  CODING_STYLE |    5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE
> > index dcbce28..e45ed1a 100644
> > --- a/CODING_STYLE
> > +++ b/CODING_STYLE
> > @@ -53,6 +53,11 @@ and is therefore likely to be changed.
> >  When wrapping standard library functions, use the prefix qemu_ to alert
> >  readers that they are seeing a wrapped version; otherwise avoid this 
> > prefix.
> >  
> > +When making use of acronyms in CamelCase only capitalize the first 
> > character
> > +of the acronym.  This promotes readability and clearly defines the start of
> > +each word or acronym.  For example, instead of PCIBAR, use PciBar.  In 
> > place
> > +of QEMUDMAList, use QemuDmaList.
> > +
> 
> I'd prefer not to do this.
> 
> We do both within QEMU and I think that's fine.  By choosing one vs. the
> other we just create a lot of friction because now people have to
> introduce structures that aren't consistent with the rest of the file.
> 
> Either is fine IMHO.

Fair enough, thanks,

Alex