On 03/06/2011 04:54 PM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 3/6/11 9:27 AM, foobar wrote:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
"Jim"<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all
identifier names in Phobos?
Some of the potential benefits:
• Legibility, understandability and clarity (reduce ambiguity).
• Ease in finding a suitable function/class by name.
• Knowing if it's a cheap or costly function call.
• Aesthetics and professional appearance.
Some properties that I can think of for discussion:
• Abbreviation (and if so, what to abbreviate and how much)?
• Preference of commonly used terms in other languages, contexts?
• Use of get and set prefixes or not (getName() or simply name())?
• Explicit use of a prefix (example: calc or calculate) for costly
operations?
• Naming of function and template arguments?
• Uppercase, lowercase, camelcase, underscore in multi-word names? All
caps for constants, or different appearance for different types (types,
functions, arguments, constants...). What about acronyms: TCP, Tcp?
Are there other concerns?
I think that every individual variable, function and type in Phobos should
use the naming convention of whatever random language the author happened to
be thinking of when they wrote it. That way Phobos won't seem messy. Plus,
the lack of any sensible rules would make it super-easy to remember all the
different spellings, punctuations and capitalizations.
I would also add to the above excellent point that in order to prevent unworthy
people of programming in the holly
You have a typo there.
Andrei
Well than I must be unworthy of the D community. I must flee before you come
chasing me with pitchforks...
...or anathems
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
