Re: Naming conventions (was Re: valgrind leak I can't find)

On 22/08/2024 10:32, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 22.08.2024 14:01, Annada Behera wrote:

On Thu, 2024-08-22 at 08:18 -0300, Thiago Adams wrote:

On 22/08/2024 08:01, Bart wrote:

On 22/08/2024 09:41, Mark Summerfield wrote:
>

This is the type's struct:
>
typedef struct {
      int _size;
      int _cap;
      char** _values;
} VecStr;

>
What's with the leading underscores for member names?

 A convention. (I.e. one convention amongst dozens.)
 

>
It means ending with ->_ later on, which seems pointless extra
clutter.

>
>
C++ is responsible for this.

 I don't think so. I've seen such conventions in many places, also
very often in C contexts. Even standards use naming conventions.
(This is no valuation. I don't give a valuation. Not yet.)

C++ also made the use of "struct/union/enum" before tags optional.
For example:
struct X x;
In C++, we can write:
X x;
Consequence?
Programmers started using a suffix "C" for classes and "E" for enums.
For example:
CArray array;
EType type;
In C, we have a similar situation where it's sometimes unclear where a variable comes from.
Consider this code:
void f(int arg1){
   i = 2;
}
This can happen with external variables.
For instance:
int i;
void f(int arg1){
   i = 2;
}
In this situation, I use a prefix "s_" for the variable, like this:
int s_i;