Open joshlf opened 7 years ago
I personally think you should keep the original names, if I'm importing an object to pass to as an argument, like you probably would with an allocator, I'd rather it's descriptive then perfectly follows naming conventions.
RFC 356 specifies that names without prefixes should be preferred over names with prefixes - e.g.,
io::Error
overio::IoError
.Currently, we use the latter naming convention - e.g.,
slab::SlabAlloc
,slab::UntypedSlabAlloc
, etc. We should abide by the proper, officially-accepted naming convention.Open questions:
ObjectAlloc
? Probably not. It's in theobject_alloc
crate, andobject_alloc::Alloc
is pretty unwieldy - most people will want touse object_alloc::ObjectAlloc
and then use the type asObjectAlloc
without the crate prefix.slab::Alloc
(and other similarly-named types) asslab::Alloc
or justAlloc
? If it's the latter, then it may actually be more clear to leave it as is (SlabAlloc
). This also avoids a conflict with theAlloc
trait from thealloc
crate, which is likely to be used by code that also uses a slab allocator.