naming convention for internal methods

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On March 15, 2007, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> Why not just mark them as internal in the API documentation? Giving them
> ugly names makes the code legitimately using them ugly as well. Is this
> worth the little additional security against people using them accidently?

i've come across unecessary usage of @internal API by applications and it's 
really hard to spot because it looks like any other part of our API. that was 
enough to convince me that @internal documentation isn't enough; whether 
people do read it, don't care, or whatever, i don't know... but being able to 
search for _internal_* will make it easier to find where these things are 
being used.

note that this is, of course, not about legitimate protected: interfaces; this 
is about stuff that -should- be private or at least not an exported symbol 
but for whatever reason can't be. in other words, uncommon and exceptional 
instances.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

Full time KDE developer sponsored by Trolltech (http://www.trolltech.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070315/f2bbfe52/attachment.sig>