f_ as safe function naming?

Feature requests for future versions of Hollywood can be voiced here
Post Reply
Bugala
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:11 pm

f_ as safe function naming?

Post by Bugala »

You have promised that as long as we use p_ at start of name of our functions, they will never collide with any command name in future.

However, now that i have started using variable, string$, t_table - as naming, it would be quite natural for me to use f_function naming as well to make it clear during programming what it is about.

What i am thinking is to use f_function for functions that i keep using from program to program, and then p_function for the ones that i have made to be used in that specific program. Since those f_functions tend to be such things that they are often commonly used very much like commands to do some simple tasks, I think it would help naming them as f_function.

So is it possible for you to add f_ naming as one of the never to be colliding with command namings?
User avatar
airsoftsoftwair
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: f_ as safe function naming?

Post by airsoftsoftwair »

No, the f_ prefix is safe. There will never be any official commands which use the underscore character after a prefix.
Bugala
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:11 pm

Re: f_ as safe function naming?

Post by Bugala »

Ah, good to know. That will give me much more options on namings.
Post Reply