Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Well, Peter and I have thought about this, but came to the conclusion that the effort (much more renaming, and more types in total, since we'd, e.g., have `CLongLong' and (Pascal extension) `LongInt' with the same meaning) is not justified by the cleaner nomenclature. Especially since in the future we plan to have an automatic translator to care about the C names.
An automatic C-header translator would be quite useful.
As for `CInt' vs. `CInteger', I don't mind very much, but since we have `CString' and not `CCharStar' ;-), I thought `CInteger' to me reasonable ...
I dislike "CString" because it obfuscates the difference between a data structure and a pointer to a datastructure -- not to mention the runtime issues involded. Same with Delphi. To me, a "CString" is a sequence of characters, followed by a char( 0). This is not the same as a pointer to those characters, allocated dynamically on the heap. Sidebar -- what happens is the dynamic allocation fails ?
In my perception, a well written algorithm is the reflection of clear thinking, Clear thinking is inextricably bound to clear terminology and utmost attention to detail.
Regards.
Adriaan van Os