NFD » ndn-cxx

I would make a different suggestion. Let's remove this rule :)

Alex Afanasyev wrote:

I would make a different suggestion. Let's remove this rule :)

I agree. Time spent following trivial rules like this distracts from getting actual coding work done. Unless there's a very good reason to keep some variable names with an exact suffix, we should remove it.

I disagree with changing or removing rule 2.18.

• No. is abbreviation of “number”, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/No.
• Not using “Num” suffix eliminates the confusion with “count” (rule 2.17), which is often expressed as “number of something” in natural language.

The goal of codebase is not “not weird”, but eliminate ambiguity.

Junxiao Shi wrote:

I disagree with changing or removing rule 2.18.

• No. is abbreviation of “number”, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/No.

Yes, but it is not used in this situation. "No" is often used in addresses and titles (e.g., "Fire Station No. 2"), while "Num" is more generic.

• Not using “Num” suffix eliminates the confusion with “count” (rule 2.17), which is often expressed as “number of something” in natural language.

The goal of codebase is not “not weird”, but eliminate ambiguity.

There is no more ambiguity with using "Num" than using "No". "n" from guideline 2.17 is a prefix, while both of these are suffixes. They also both share the same number of letters with "n". Also, if they both mean the same thing, then how could "Num" cause more confusion with "number of something" than "No"?