Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 15:36 dsimcha wrote: > > On 9/14/2011 5:24 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > > > Tiny nitpick: case of "GC" in type/enum names should probably match for > > > consistency. > > > > Good point. Do we even have a convention for acronyms in variable/type > > names? If so is it GcAllocator or GCAllocator? > > We haven't been entirely consistent. For instance, we have UtfException, but > _every_ other case of utf in the code is either utf (at the beginning of a > function) or UTF (I have a pull request which includes fixing the casing on > UtfException to match everything else). Given the choice, I'd definitely say > that GC should be used and not Gc, and everywhere in Phobos where I've > created > a function which had an acronym in it, that's what I've done, but without > going through the whole code base, I don't know which convention is more > common (other than the case of Utf where I did go looking; it's easier when > you know what the acronym is rather than looking for _all_ acronyms). I don't > think that acronyms have been all that common in general though.
When I had first glance at GCAllocator I observed this as well. I believe GcAlloctor is the better way to camelize it even though druntime has a class GC. It's easier to read for me, consider XMLToHTMLConverter vs. XmlToHtmlConverter or worse XMLHTMLConverter vs. XmlHtmlConverter. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1176950/acronyms-in-camel-back In sum I'd like to follow Java convention. I can also live with GCAllocator if that's more consistent with the current style. But it should definitely be fixed in the style guide. Jens
