On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:38:06PM +0200, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:26:08 -0700, David Roundy wrote: > > And I like to keep modules consisted in this respect, so older modules > > should remain all_underscore, unless someone wants to refactor them > > (which doesn't seem worth the effort). > > So you would not object if somebody submitted patches that darcs > replaced the underscore_using exported functions with camelCase > equivalents...
Maybe not entirely, sometimes we've got two distinct functions that would become identical. > But would you object if somebody submitted a patch that made *all* > functions camelCase? I understand it's less readable for you, but > saying "all camelCase" seems somewhat easier to explain and implement > than "camelCase only for things which we export" (which changes easily > anyway). It seems like an all camelCase switch would make things > marginally easier for newbies (I remember asking myself the question > once...). Would it make things significantly harder for you? I think I really prefer non-exported functions to be non-camel-case. To me, it make is somewhat clearer what's going on. I really do like the distinction, so one can see which things are just convenience functions and which are "exported, universal" functions. Of course, to do this consistently would mean renaming a function when you decide to export it, but that's a small issue compared with the amount of thought that ought to go into the decision to export a function (not that I've always done a good job myself, but I'm getting better--or at least pickier). > In any case, thanks for piping up about this! Hey, it's important what color the bike shed is, man! -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
