要使用“I”前缀接口或不 [英] To use the 'I' prefix for interfaces or not to

问题描述

这是个问题？赎罪那么它有多大不是开发一个C＃项目时使用此惯例？这种约定广泛用于.NET类库。不过，我不是一个球迷，至少可以说，不只是为了asthetic原因，但我不认为这有什么贡献。例如IPSec的皮秒的接口？是IOPConnection的IIOPConnection的接口，我通常会去定义，找出反正。

That is the question? So how big a sin is it not to use this convention when developing a c# project? This convention is widely used in the .NET class library. However, I am not a fan to say the least, not just for asthetic reasons but I don't think it makes any contribution. For example is IPSec an interface of PSec? Is IIOPConnection An interface of IOPConnection, I usually go to the definition to find out anyway.

• 因此不会使用这个约定造成混乱？


• 是否有任何C＃项目或库注意，降本公约？


• 请任何C＃项目的混合公约，可惜的Apache Wicket的呢？

图书馆已经没有这个存在多年的Java类，我不觉得我曾经努力没有它读取的代码。此外，如果接口不是最原始的描述？我的意思的IList< T>为名单℃的接口; T>在C＃中，难道不是最好有列表< T>和LinkedList< T>或ArrayList的< T>甚至的CopyOnWriteArrayList< T> ;?这些类描述实现？我想我在这里获得更多的信息，比我从名单<做; T>在C＃。

The Java class libraries have existed without this for many years, I don't feel I have ever struggled to read code without it. Also, should the interface not be the most primitive description? I mean IList<T> as an interface for List<T> in c#, is it not better to have List<T> and LinkedList<T> or ArrayList<T> or even CopyOnWriteArrayList<T>? The classes describe the implementation? I think I get more information here, than I do from List<T> in c#.

推荐答案

Java和C＃的区别是Java可以让你轻松辨别是否实现一个接口或延长类，因为它有相应的关键字工具和扩展。

The difference between Java and C# is that Java allows you to easily distinguish whether you implement an interface or extend a class since it has the corresponding keywords implements and extends.

由于C＃不仅具有：来表达或者实现或扩展，我建议标准以下和接口的名字前加上一个I

As C# only has the : to express either an implementation or extension, I recommend following the standard and put an I before an interface's name.

这篇关于要使用“I”前缀接口或不的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！