Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

reserved identifier violation #33

Closed
elfring opened this issue Sep 13, 2014 · 7 comments
Closed

reserved identifier violation #33

elfring opened this issue Sep 13, 2014 · 7 comments

Comments

@elfring
Copy link

elfring commented Sep 13, 2014

I would like to point out that identifiers like "__WJEBool" and "_WJROpenDocument" do not fit to the expected naming convention of the C language standard.
Would you like to adjust your selection for unique names?

@penduin
Copy link
Member

penduin commented Sep 17, 2014

We won't be changing names of things unless they were to present some real-world problems. (And the names do fit other conventions we've got within Netmail, for good or bad.) That's interesting to know, though!

@penduin penduin closed this as completed Sep 17, 2014
@elfring
Copy link
Author

elfring commented Sep 17, 2014

How do you think about to avoid that this software depends on undefined behaviour?

@penduin
Copy link
Member

penduin commented Sep 17, 2014

Can you point to any use case where this causes build or runtime errors? If we're going to rename things, I want it to solve a real problem that someone is having.

@elfring
Copy link
Author

elfring commented Sep 17, 2014

When will undefined behaviour become "a real problem" in your software?

@minego
Copy link
Member

minego commented Sep 17, 2014

On 09/17/14 12:52, Markus Elfring wrote:

When will undefined behaviour become "a real problem" in your software?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment).

The undefined behavior you mention appears to be a C++ issue. We do not
currently use this in C++.

@elfring
Copy link
Author

elfring commented Sep 17, 2014

Would you like to reconsider your standard interpretation?

@minego
Copy link
Member

minego commented Sep 17, 2014

On 09/17/14 13:14, Markus Elfring wrote:

Would you like to reconsider your standard interpretation
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10687053/meaning-of-double-underscore-in-the-beginning?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#33 (comment).

The previous links you sent where specific to C++. This link is more
useful, thank you.

I have not ruled out making a change. Still thinking about how to do it
without breaking existing consumers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants