Re: Formatting in assembly
- From: "James Daughtry" <mordock32@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Mar 2006 08:07:23 -0800
Betov wrote:
... but achieving in all cases into bad naming. If this
is "Ascii to EAX", then the Routine Name is "AsciiToEax",
and nothing else.
That's not such a great name either. ;-)
Let's pretend I'm a beginner. What's Ascii? What's Eax? Why are you
changing Ascii to Eax? You assumed that your readers know what Ascii
means, know what Eax means, and why such a conversion is desirable. I
assumed that my readers are familiar enough with programming to figure
out that atoi means ASCII-to-Integer by looking at the context and the
interface.
Your suggested name also implies an implementation. What if for some
reason I decide to change the return value to ebx? I would need to
change the name of the subroutine as well, or risk confusing readers.
That's not to say that my name is any better, but I'm not a fan of the
naming scheme that you (and Windows) advocate. I prefer separating
words with an underscore (ascii_to_integer), and I much prefer keeping
names short enough to type easily. This is a style issue, so I'll have
to disagree that the only "right" name is AsciiToEax and nothing else.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Formatting in assembly
- From: Betov
- Re: Formatting in assembly
- References:
- Formatting in assembly
- From: James Daughtry
- Re: Formatting in assembly
- From: Betov
- Re: Formatting in assembly
- From: Dragontamer
- Re: Formatting in assembly
- From: Betov
- Formatting in assembly
- Prev by Date: Re: Formatting in assembly
- Next by Date: Re: SpooK, its put up or shut up time.
- Previous by thread: Re: Formatting in assembly
- Next by thread: Re: Formatting in assembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|