I might be already exposing myself as an emacs user, but I think Lisp naming convention is pretty reasonable. I use it in other languages as far as their language rules allow me
if a variable or function is a predicate (as in if it tests if something is true or not), append p or _p/-p
variables and functions both have lisp case variable-name-here. Sub for _ in languages that dont allow - in names
unused or unexposed variables are prefixed _ .
top level packages get naming rights. So if I’m making cool-package then variables or functions that are specific to it are cool-package-variable (especially if it is exposed to other packages). cool-package/variable is also good if allowed.
otherwise, separate namespaces with /. So there’s main-function and my/main-function. If / is reserved, then I assume the language has a way of segmenting namespaces already and just default to that since _ or - would get ambiguous here.
I might be already exposing myself as an emacs user, but I think Lisp naming convention is pretty reasonable. I use it in other languages as far as their language rules allow me
if a variable or function is a predicate (as in if it tests if something is true or not), append
por_p/-pvariables and functions both have lisp case
variable-name-here. Sub for_in languages that dont allow-in namesunused or unexposed variables are prefixed
_.top level packages get naming rights. So if I’m making
cool-packagethen variables or functions that are specific to it arecool-package-variable(especially if it is exposed to other packages).cool-package/variableis also good if allowed.otherwise, separate namespaces with
/. So there’smain-functionandmy/main-function. If/is reserved, then I assume the language has a way of segmenting namespaces already and just default to that since_or-would get ambiguous here.See the rest here: https://github.com/bbatsov/emacs-lisp-style-guide