naming-conventions

This question already has an answer here: Java packages com and org 4 answers In most source codes, the root package/folder is named "com". Why is that so? It it just convention or does it stand for something? The convention is that a programmer in a given organization will start package names with their organization's domain name, as a unique identifier -- in reverse order. This prevents namespace clashes between code from different organizations (within the organization you're on your own). So if I work for a company called Supercompany, and their domain is supercompany.com, all of my

I admit that this question is subjective but I am interested in the view of the community. I have a cache class that takes a cache loader function of type Func<TResult> , which it uses to retrieve a value from the database and store it in cache. public static class Cache { public TResult Get<TResult>(string cacheKey, Func<TResult> cacheLoader) { // Implementation } } My question is: How should I name the function parameter? Should I name it like an object, e.g. cacheLoader ? Should I name it like a method, e.g. loadResult ? Should I explicitly refer to it as a function, e.g. cacheLoadFunction

I don't work with the Windows API much, but I've seen it used there as well as occasionally in a codebase here at work. Yup, they wanted to improve (Extend) the API and keep a similar name so it was likely that the programmer would move to the new version. Notable is GetVersionEx() to get the Windows version, pretty painful for a while with a nasty chicken-and-egg problem. The record keeper is the National Language Support team who have several ExEx versions, like EnumCalendarInfoExEx. Unsurprising, culture moves even faster than software. No ExExEx as of yet. It's usually done as a way of

To make my code more readable, I like to avoid names of objects that already exist when creating new objects. Because of the package-based nature of R, and because functions are first-class objects, it can be easy to overwrite common functions that are not in base R (since a common package might use a short function name but without knowing what package to load there is no way to check for it). Objects such as the built-in logicals T and F also cause trouble. Some examples that come to mind are: One letter c t T/F J Two letters df A better solution might be to avoid using short names

A friend told me that I should include the table name in the field name of the same table, and I'm wondering why? And should it be like this? Example: (Table) Users (Fields) user_id, username, password, last_login_time I see that the prefix 'user_' is meaningless since I know it's already for a user. But I'd like to hear from you too. note: I'm programming in php, mysql. I agree with you. The only place I am tempted to put the table name or a shortened form of it is on primary and foreign keys or if the "natural" name is a keyword. Users: id or user_id, username, password, last_login_time Post

I really like Caliburn and the naming convention binding and was surprised that the Visibility is not bound in the same way the "CanNAME" Convention is used to guard an Action. As far as I know is the BooleanToVisibilityConverter only used when Binding is explicitly used in Caliburn and not automatically like the guard method. So I was thinking to modify the source to bind automatically to "bool? ControlNameIsVisible()" (null equals collapse) or similar. I was wondering if that is the right approach and if soo if somebody has done the implementation already and could share it here. You could

While working on a project, I've been making some changes and browsing around existing framework API docs for insight. While perusing the Kohana docs, I noticed that the getters/setters of any given class are typically combined: public function someProperty($value = null){ if(is_null($value){ return $this->_someProperty; } $this->_someProperty = $value; return $this; } Rather than: public function setSomeProperty($value){ $this->_someProperty = $value; return $this; } public function getSomeProperty(){ return $this->_someProperty; } Is there any value in doing this ( the former ), beyond