-Original Message-
From: Smylers [mailto:smyl...@stripey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:20 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: Underscores v Hyphens (Was: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32]
backtraces
overhaul)
Moritz Lenz writes:
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian
S19 uses hyphens for all of perl6's long-form command-line flags.
Command-line flags and methods are separate sets. Hyphens would be the
norm for flags.
In S28, we find $*EXECUTABLE_NAME and %*META-ARGS listed
within 10 lines of each other.
S32-setting-library_IO.pod and
Moritz Lenz writes:
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
the minus character for user-space code.
So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an identifier
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:19, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in programs),
with programmers
Damian (), Moritz (), Smylers ():
... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
the minus character for user-space code.
So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an identifier zapeth_clunk itself that
leaves
Am 24.08.2011 11:33, schrieb Carl Mäsak:
Damian (), Moritz (), Smylers ():
... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
the minus character for user-space code.
So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an
That kind of consistency is not much better than inconsistency in terms of
usability, IMO. I'd much prefer a purely lexical convention that doesn't
rely on how you assign parts of speech or define a single word that has a
hyphen in it.
Given that we allow hyphens in identifiers, I'd personally
Smylers wrote:
Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in programs),
with programmers able to use either separator on a whim?
I oppose
Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:20 PDT:
Smylers wrote:
Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:20 PDT:
I oppose this. Underscores and hyphens should remain distinct.
That would seem to be the most human-friendly approach.
I disagree. More human friendly is if it looks different in any way
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs
Commit: a7cfe02002f665c120cf4b735919779820194757
https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/a7cfe02002f665c120cf4b735919779820194757
Author: Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org
Date: 2011-08-23 (Tue, 23 Aug 2011)
Changed
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
Are we consistently using underscores for multi_word traits
and hyphens for multi-word methods? Wouldn't it be nice to
have a consistent
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
The current stance seems to be that low-level things are spelled with
underscores, while
Am 23.08.2011 10:56, schrieb Moritz Lenz:
And why is this entire message written in questions?
Is it? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Never mind?
: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:56 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given
@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
The current stance seems
:613-327-6928
- Original Message -
From: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:rich...@rusrating.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 06:28 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
If you're asking for an explanation
: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:rich...@rusrating.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 06:28 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
If you're asking for an explanation of the humour, then it's easy. There
is no word play
The current stance seems to be that low-level things are spelled with
underscores, while we reserve the minus character for user-space code. Try
grepping the specs for identifiers of built-ins that have a minus in it -- I
didn't find any in a quick search.
I had a little more time to look and
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:36:27PM +0200, Damian Conway wrote:
And I'd like there to be a more consistent approach than that
(though I don't really care what it actually is).
+1 to consistency.
Pm
20 matches
Mail list logo
