Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Alternatively, "writefln" could be an exception to the rules, but then
the exception would need a better rationale than "it shouldn't look like
Java". I mean, if Phobos makes unjustified exceptions to its naming
conventions here and there for no good other reason than "it looks
good", it breaks the concistency and makes function names less
predictable and less readable.
I agree that Phobos' names could use a good overhaul. That would make it
easier for growing it too.
Certain names could be kept short and intuitive although they don't fit
common conventions.
Andrei
You could also use aliases to make everyone happy, thats what I do in my local
phobos source, its just a bitch to upgrade to the newest dmd while keeping my
own changes ;)
One of the most annoying names I've had in phobos was the std.utf.encode/decode
functions. When I would come across these in some code it wasnt descriptive
enough as to what was being done. So I rewrote the std.utf module to use names
such as toUTF8, toUTF16 and toUnicode, and made a generic toUTF template to
call the proper one. Then aliased encode and decode to their corresponding
toUTF calls to keep compatibility with the rest of phobos, works like a charm.
I can mail you my version of std.utf if you want Andrei.
I'd be glad to look at it! Just give me time.
Andrei
