[Ctk-developers] Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMModel.cxx : variables names with same naming as method names

[Luis Ibanez]

I see,

It is too bad that Qt got satisfied with a lower quality bar.


We can still avoid having local variables with the same
names as member variables and member methods.

For example,
many of the offending warnings were fixed by replacing

     ambiguousvariablename

with

     ambiguousvariablenameValue

we could have as well used the more arcane

     ambiguousvariablename_


Making good choices on names of methods, and variables
is a an effective way of documenting the code.


    Luis


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Julien Finet <julien.finet at kitware.com> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> I understand your concern.
> We can't change the name of the method index() as it is a virtual method
> that has been declared in a Qt subclass.
> And the problem we face here is that the Qt library doesn't care about
> shadow variables. (and if I recall, they didn't plan on changing that).
> We unofficially decided during the CTK Pre Hackfest that a CTK class should
> follow the naming convention of its derived class, Qt in this example.
> Is that still OK for everybody ?
> Setting up KWStyle seems like a good idea. Can we configure it in a way to
> check a style depending on a filename (ideally the style of the derived
> class)
> Julien.
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>>
>> I recall that at some point we discussed a
>> naming convention for Qt-like classes, but
>> I'm not sure if we arrived to a consensus.
>>
>>
>> The file:
>>
>>  Libs/DICOM/Core/ctkDICOMModel.cxx
>>
>> had an abundant use of local variables with
>> names matching some member variables and
>> member methods.
>>
>> A notable example:
>>
>>                       "index"
>>
>> I just committed a fix for most of them,
>> but for the long run it will be great if we
>> agree on some naming convention.
>>
>> I would vote against having a method of a C++ class
>> to be called "index()" for example.       :-)
>>
>> a more useful name will be "getIndex()", for example,
>> or in this particular case, it looks like what the function
>> is actually doing is generating an index, so good names
>> could be
>>
>> ctkDICOMModel::generatgeIndex ( int row, int column, const QModelIndex
>> & parentValue ) const
>>
>> or
>>
>> ctkDICOMModel::computeIndex ( int row, int column, const QModelIndex &
>> parentValue ) const
>>
>> or
>>
>> ctkDICOMModel::produceIndex ( int row, int column, const QModelIndex &
>> parentValue ) const
>>
>>
>> There is already another
>>
>>                createIndex(int, int, Node *)
>>
>>
>> so it will be fine if we use
>>
>> ctkDICOMModel::createIndex ( int row, int column, const QModelIndex &
>> parentValue ) const
>>
>> since the signature will be different.
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>> Do we have a document on coding style ?
>>
>> if we do,
>> we probably should setup KWStyle testing
>> before things get out of control.
>>
>>
>>
>>      Luis
>
>