> Fine. We're mostly agreed. I'm just really against single letter > identifiers for the non-mathematical case. Always. That was really the > point that I was making, even if I wasn't so clear about it.
Single letter identifiers can make sense for the non-mathematical case. I think on this there is no agreement and different developers have different tastes / habits. I don't see why we should force developers to follow one way of coding if there is no agreement. ;-) > >> As I said, both are used internally and I think that situation is bad. > >> Thus, we should pick the "one true style" for this as part of the canon. > >> > >> Can we agree that *one* method is better than two? > > > > Yes ... but I don't think it's sufficiently better that one should be > > insisted upon when people contribute. I think that the NeXT style is > > overwhelmingly more common, so I prefer it, and it's no real trouble to > > convert gnu-style function names to NeXT style ones. > > Ahah! > > Take a look at what you wrote. I take it that you're saying that the > NeXT style is the standard and gnu_style_function names should be > changed to comply. Isn't that so? Well you seem to ignore why we have this mixture of different styles. The OpenStep API uses a certain style (like NSDrawRect). The GNU Objective-C runtime API though uses a different style (like objc_free). We are in the middle between the two. ;-) Moreover, we are supposed to be following the GNU Coding Standards, which require GNU C style to be used for all C code (it doesn't talk about ObjC code though). Eg, think of public stuff we add: if we're adding something which looks like an ObjC runtime extension, it becomes natural to use the GNU ObjC style; if we're adding something that looks like an OpenStep extension it becomes natural to use the OpenStep style. Internal implementation details are a bit in the middle of those two cases. If you're doing mostly C stuff, it becomes natural to use GNU C style conventions; if you're doing mostly ObjC stuff, it becomes natural to use OpenStep ObjC conventions. An idea is using OpenStep ObjC conventions for all ObjC class/method/protocol/object names and for public functions meant to be extensions of OpenStep (except when it has to do with the runtime), and GNU C/ObjC conventions for all function/C variables. I believe in the mind of some developers this is what we are already doing ;-) Anyway, the essential point is that there is a reason why we have two styles in use, and you can't ignore it ... _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
