naming-conventions

问题 I'm Java SE/EE developer, but beginner in Scala. In Java, when I have some private fields which should be accessible to other code, I use getX() / setX() classic style of getters/setters. However, not sure how about Scala. I noticed that in Scala, naming convention of getter/setter for field is to use the same name as the field's one. So is it OK to simply set the field public , or should I use this style of getter/setter?: private var _value = ..... def value = _value def value_= (newVal:Int

问题 Closed . This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post. Closed 3 years ago . When I'm naming array-type variables, I often am confronted with a dilemma: Do I name my array plurally or singularly? For example, let's say I have an array of names: In PHP I would say: $names=array("Alice","Bobby","Charles"); However, then lets say I want to reference a

问题 Java 14 introduced records feature. Record creates getter with the same name as field, so one would write print(person.name()) for example. But old Java bean convention dictates that one should name this method as getName() . Using both styles in the same code base does not look very nice. Migrating everything to records is not possible, as they are too limited to replace all use-cases. Is there any official or semi-official guidelines how to name getters and setters after Java 14 in new code

问题 Java 14 introduced records feature. Record creates getter with the same name as field, so one would write print(person.name()) for example. But old Java bean convention dictates that one should name this method as getName() . Using both styles in the same code base does not look very nice. Migrating everything to records is not possible, as they are too limited to replace all use-cases. Is there any official or semi-official guidelines how to name getters and setters after Java 14 in new code

问题 This question already has answers here : What does the 'static' keyword do in a class? (21 answers) Closed last month . In many languages, e.g. Java and JavaScript, the 'static' keyword refers to class methods or class variables. Why is it called the 'static' method? Why not 'blue' method? Or 'global' method? Where does the keyword come from? What is the origin for that denomination? Is it related to the compiler? 回答1: To answer to ur 1st and 2nd question A static method belongs to the class

问题 Closed . This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post. Closed 4 years ago . What should cookie names look like? Should they be: lower_case CamelCase Underscore_Camel_Case UPPER_CASE Or should they be something else? 回答1: appname_meaningfulname 回答2: Keep in mind that this cookie is sent with every request, so imho, just use the smallest name you can,

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 8 years ago . Possible Duplicate: Class method and variable with same name, compile error in C++ not in Java? The G++ compiler would complain when my class member name and member function name are the same. It seems that whenever a variable name happens to be the same as a function name, the compiler would complain. In Java, it is not the case. I just wonder why the G++ compiler cannot distinguish a variable name from a function name since the

问题 This question already has answers here : Closed 8 years ago . Possible Duplicate: Class method and variable with same name, compile error in C++ not in Java? The G++ compiler would complain when my class member name and member function name are the same. It seems that whenever a variable name happens to be the same as a function name, the compiler would complain. In Java, it is not the case. I just wonder why the G++ compiler cannot distinguish a variable name from a function name since the

问题 As regards best practices, is there a meaningful difference between using: Double d; and double d; I know best practices are fraught with contradictions, so I know the answers may vary here. I just want to know the pragmatic difference between the two. 回答1: There is no difference. double is just an alias for System.Double in C#. Note that VB.NET doesn't have the same aliasing (int for System.Int32, double for System.Double, etc), so the aliasing is just applicable to C#, not .NET as a whole.

问题 As regards best practices, is there a meaningful difference between using: Double d; and double d; I know best practices are fraught with contradictions, so I know the answers may vary here. I just want to know the pragmatic difference between the two. 回答1: There is no difference. double is just an alias for System.Double in C#. Note that VB.NET doesn't have the same aliasing (int for System.Int32, double for System.Double, etc), so the aliasing is just applicable to C#, not .NET as a whole.