Current naming convention of abstract classes

Current naming convention of abstract classes - BaseFoo vs. FooBase?

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework

13 Jul 2006 1:26 AM

Keith Patrick

This is probably a question for someone at MS, although I haven't found
anything in FxCop or definitive in the newsgroups regarding this, but what
is the current, if any, naming standard regarding base classes? A lot of
the older classes are Base<classname> (i.e BaseValidator), and some newer
ones - and these may be particular to ASP.Net 2 - follow the <classname>Base
pattern (i.e. ProviderBase). Is there a definitive direction the standards
are going on this (very minute) naming convention?

13 Jul 2006 10:29 AM

Larry Lard

Keith Patrick wrote:

> This is probably a question for someone at MS, although I haven't found
> anything in FxCop or definitive in the newsgroups regarding this, but what
> is the current, if any, naming standard regarding base classes? A lot of
> the older classes are Base<classname> (i.e BaseValidator), and some newer
> ones - and these may be particular to ASP.Net 2 - follow the <classname>Base
> pattern (i.e. ProviderBase). Is there a definitive direction the standards
> are going on this (very minute) naming convention?

Someone with <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321246756> might be
able to answer this. Or you could always get it yourself :)

--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please
When starting a new topic, please mention which version of VB/C# you
are using

19 Jul 2006 7:12 PM

Keith Patrick

I bought it, and it has no mention of naming abstract classes. There's
about a page dedicated to them, and it's basically about their constructors.