Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 16:12 Jens Mueller wrote: > > 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 > > Actually, I find XMLToHTMLConverter to be more legible than > XmlToHtmlConverter, because XML and HTML are pretty much always capitalized > everywhere else, and so Xml and Html are unfamiliar and jarring. Acronyms are > meant to be capitalized. So, the natural thing to do is to put them in all > caps in camelcased names. The problem is that you then end up with stuff like > XMLTo where the first part of the next word in the name is capitalized but > isn't part of the acronym, which is a bit funny. It's completely consistent > and legible that way though. There's no confusion over whether the T is part > of XML or not. It's just arguably a bit ugly. But _not_ capitalizing acronyms > is generally far more hideous IMHO and makes them harder to read, because > they're pretty much always capitalized everywhere else.
I think that are capitalized everywhere else because they are separated by spaces in these cases. But how about XMLHTMLConverter? Because I believe you then have to accept this as well without making the rule complicated. Also your argument is only valid for acronyms you know already. What does a DSAFUSLConverter do? I just made this to illustrate the point. Jens
