Subject: Re: DirectC: C layer - naming convention
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 16:32:41 PST
> This proposal sounds fine to me.
> I like the idea of staying consistent with VPI.
> It doesn't seem like it would be distracting or take
> anything away from our DirectC API.
>
> Regards,
> Doug
It will come with a price: an increased length.
Compare the two versions of the function name:
svPutBitArrElemVec32
vs.
sv_put_bit_arr_elem_vec32
Besides, svLeft is more similar to $Left than sv_left is.
Guys, what do you prefer?
Andrzej
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrzej Litwiniuk [mailto:Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com]
> > Subject: DirectC: C layer - naming convention
> >
> > Joao's document on assertions API specifies the naming convention:
> >
> > 1. all names will be prefixed by ...
> > 2. type name will start with ... followed by Capitalized words
> > with no separators, eg vpiAssertCheck
> > 3. all function names will start with ... followed by
> > all lowercase
> > words separated by '_', eg vpi_get_assert_info()
> >
> > (there is no convention for macros and #defined
> > symbolic constants)
> >
> > Shall we follow similar convention for DirectC C Layer?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 16:33:18 PST