[Lazarus] TMask revisited

[Maxim Ganetsky]

23.10.2021 13:22, Bart via lazarus пишет:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 12:02 PM Bart <bartjunk64 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> since we are still looking for a better (?) name for the
>> eMaskOpcodeOptionalChar enum:
> 
> This brings me to another point, and please, please, please don't see
> this as criticism of feel offended by me.
> 
> Naming conventions.
> Typically we don't have the habit of haveing the literal phrase "enum"
> in our enum typenames.
> We also tend to adopt that enum names are derived form the typename in
> a manner like
> typename: TSomeType
> enum name: stXXX
> 
> Then we have TMaskOpcode and TMaskOpcodesEnum types.
> The first one is more or less an internal type.
> The latter one is for common user interface.
> Since TMaskOpCode is used in the interface part of TMask, we must have
> it in the interface part of the unit.
> 
> If we rename TMaskOpCode to TInternalMaskOpCode and rename
> TMaskOpcodesEnum to TMaskOpcodesEnum to TMaskOpcode and
> TMaskOpcodesSet to TMaskOpcodes (we tend to do that with sets of
> enums: set typename = typename+s), then the opcode enum names can be
> changed to moAnyChar, moAnyCharOrNone etc.
> So:
> TInternalMaskOpcode (integers)
> TMaskOpcode (the enums)
> TMaskOpcodes: set of TMaskOpcode
> Enum names: moXXX
> 
> This would be more in line with our unwritten style guide (at least
> this is how I percieve it).
> Also we have shorter, yet not less intuitive, enum names.
> 
> The same for TWindowsQuirks:
> TWindowsQuirks: enums
> TWindowsQuirks: set of TWindowsQuirks
> Enum names: wqXXX
> 
> Yes, those are intrusive changes, and they add no functionality, nor
> do they fix any bugs, but this is the time to consider such a change.
> The new and improved (yes, improved) TMask with all new types won't be
> used very much ATM.
> In a few weeks or months this might not be the case anymore.
> 
> Opinions please!

Makes sense.

-- 
Best regards,
  Maxim Ganetsky                  mailto:ganmax at narod.ru