C++ 中的函数名称：大写与否？
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1776291/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
Function names in C++: Capitalize or not?
提问by user69514
What's the convention for naming functions in C++?
在 C++ 中命名函数的约定是什么？
I come from the Java environment so I usually name something like:
我来自 Java 环境，所以我通常命名为：
myFunction(...) {
}
I've seen mixed code in C++,
我见过 C++ 中的混合代码，
myFunction(....)
MyFunction(....)
Myfunction(....)
What's the correct way?
正确的方法是什么？
Also, is it the same for a class method as well as a non-class method?
另外，类方法和非类方法是否相同？
采纳答案by int3
There isn't a 'correct way'. They're all syntactically correct, though there are some conventions. You could follow the Google style guide, although there are others out there.
没有“正确的方法”。尽管有一些约定，但它们在语法上都是正确的。您可以遵循Google style guide，尽管那里还有其他指南。
From said guide:
从上述指南：
Regular functions have mixed case; accessors and mutators match the name of the variable: MyExcitingFunction(), MyExcitingMethod(), my_exciting_member_variable(), set_my_exciting_member_variable().
常规函数大小写混合；访问器和修改器匹配变量的名称：MyExcitingFunction()、MyExcitingMethod()、my_exciting_member_variable()、set_my_exciting_member_variable()。
回答by emlai
Since C++11, you may want to use either snake_caseor camelCasefor function names.
从 C++11 开始，您可能希望使用snake_case或camelCase函数名称。
This is because to make a class work as the range-expression in a range-based for-loop, you have todefine functions called beginand end(case-sensitive) for that class.
这是因为要使类在基于范围的 for-loop 中用作范围表达式，您必须为该类定义调用begin和end（区分大小写）的函数。
Consequently, using e.g. PascalCasefor function names means you have to break the naming consistency in your project if you ever need to make a class work with the range-based for.
因此，使用 eg PascalCasefor 函数名意味着如果您需要使类使用基于范围的 for ，则必须打破项目中的命名一致性。
回答by Donnie
Most code I've seen is camelCasefunctions (lower case initial letter), and ProperCase/PascalCaseclass names, and (most usually), snake_casevariables.
我见过的大多数代码都是camelCase函数（小写首字母）和ProperCase/PascalCase类名，以及（最常见的）snake_case变量。
But, to be honest, this is all just guidance. The single most important thing is to be consistent across your code base. Pick what seems natural / works for you, and stick to it. If you're joining a project in progress, follow their standards.
但是，老实说，这只是指导。最重要的一点是在您的代码库中保持一致。选择看起来自然/对你有用的东西，并坚持下去。如果您要加入正在进行的项目，请遵循他们的标准。
回答by Steven Keith
The most common ones I see in production code are (in this order):
我在生产代码中看到的最常见的是（按此顺序）：
myFunctionName // lower camel case
MyFunctionName // upper camel case
my_function_name // K & R ?
I find the naming convention a programmer uses in C++ code usually has something to do with their programming background.
我发现程序员在 C++ 代码中使用的命名约定通常与他们的编程背景有关。
E.g. ex-java programmers tend to use lower camel case for functions
例如，前 Java 程序员倾向于对函数使用小驼峰式大小写
回答by TofuBeer
If you look at the standard libraries the pattern generally is my_function, but every person does seem to have their own way :-/
如果您查看标准库，则模式通常是 my_function，但每个人似乎都有自己的方式：-/
回答by Steve Jessop
Personally, I prefer thisStyleto ThisStylefor functions. This is really for personal taste, probably Java-influenced, but I quite like functions and classes to look different.
就个人而言，我更喜欢thisStyle到ThisStyle的功能。这真的是出于个人喜好，可能受 Java 影响，但我非常喜欢函数和类看起来不同。
If I had to argue for it, though, I'd say that the distinction is slightly more than just aesthetic. It saves a tiny bit of thought when you come across function-style construction of a temporary. Against that, you can argue that it doesn't actually matter whether Foo(1,2,3)is a function call or not - if it is a constructor, then it acts exactly like a function returning a Foo by value anyway.
不过，如果我不得不为它争论，我会说这种区别不仅仅是美学上的。当您遇到临时的函数式构造时，它可以省去一点思考。与此相反，您可以争辩说，是否Foo(1,2,3)是函数调用实际上并不重要- 如果它是构造函数，那么它的行为就像一个按值返回 Foo 的函数。
The convention also avoids the function-with-same-name-as-a-class-is-not-an-error fiasco that C++ inherits because C has a separate tag namespace:
该约定还避免了 C++ 继承的 function-with-same-name-as-a-class-is-not-an-error 惨败，因为 C 有一个单独的标签命名空间：
#include <iostream>
struct Bar {
int a;
Bar() : a(0) {}
Bar(int a) : a(a) {}
};
struct Foo {
Bar b;
};
int Bar() {
return 23;
}
int main() {
Foo f;
f.b = Bar();
// outputs 23
std::cout << f.b.a << "\n";
// This line doesn't compile. The function has hidden the class.
// Bar b;
}
Bar is, after all, both a noun and a verb, so could reasonably be defined as a class in one place and a function in another. Obviously there are better ways to avoid the clash, such as proper use of namespaces. So as I say, really it's just because I prefer the look of functions with lower-case initials rather than because it's actually necessary to distinguish them from from classes.
毕竟，Bar 既是名词又是动词，因此可以合理地在一处定义为类，而在另一处定义为函数。显然有更好的方法来避免冲突，例如正确使用命名空间。所以正如我所说，实际上只是因为我更喜欢带有小写首字母的函数的外观，而不是因为实际上有必要将它们与类区分开来。
回答by Laurence Gonsalves
Unlike Java, C++ doesn't have a "standard style". Pretty much very company I've ever worked at has its own C++ coding style, and most open source projects have their own styles too. A few coding conventions you might want to look at:
与 Java 不同，C++ 没有“标准风格”。我曾经工作过的几乎所有公司都有自己的 C++ 编码风格，大多数开源项目也有自己的风格。您可能想要查看的一些编码约定：
- GNU Coding Standards(mostly C, but mentions C++)
- Google C++ Style Guide
- C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices
- GNU 编码标准（主要是 C，但也提到了 C++）
- 谷歌 C++ 风格指南
- C++ 编码标准：101 条规则、指南和最佳实践
It's interesting to note that C++ coding standards often specify which parts of the language not to use. For example, the Google C++ Style Guide says "We do not use C++ exceptions". Almost everywhere I've worked has prohibited certain parts of C++. (One place I worked basically said, "program in C, but newand deleteare okay"!)
有趣的是，C++ 编码标准通常指定不使用语言的哪些部分。例如，Google C++ Style Guide 说“我们不使用 C++ 异常”。我工作过的几乎所有地方都禁止使用 C++ 的某些部分。（一个地方我的工作基本上是说，“在C程序，但new并delete是没关系”！）
回答by Nemanja Trifunovic
As others said, there is no such thing in C++. Having said that, I tend to use the style in which the standard library is written - K & R.
正如其他人所说，C++ 中没有这样的东西。话虽如此，我倾向于使用编写标准库的风格——K&R。
回答by sud03r
I think its a matter of preference, although i prefer myFunction(...)
我认为这是一个偏好问题，虽然我更喜欢 myFunction(...)
回答by Daniel Bingham
There isn't so much a 'correct' way for the language. It's more personal preference or what the standard is for your team. I usually use the myFunction() when I'm doing my own code. Also, a style you didn't mention that you will often see in C++ is my_function() - no caps, underscores instead of spaces.
语言没有那么多“正确”的方式。这更多是个人喜好或您的团队的标准。我通常在编写自己的代码时使用 myFunction()。此外，您在 C++ 中经常看到的一种您没有提到的样式是 my_function() - 没有大写字母、下划线而不是空格。
Really it is just dictated by the code your working in. Or, if it's your own project, your own personal preference then.
实际上，这只是由您所使用的代码决定的。或者，如果这是您自己的项目，则是您自己的个人偏好。
