Your explanation couldn't be clearer. I now understand why the 
underscore doesn't bother me so much even though I'm not such a Heathen 
as not to use Emacs:

1) I type on a french keyboard and I don't have to shift to get the 
underscore character (only to get most every other useful character for 
2) I'm a fast typist and have never been much a fan of dynamic completion.

And with that, perhaps we will let this topic slowly sink into the 
sunset and get on with useful programming once again :-)


J.Pietschmann wrote:

> or perhaps being to lazy to properly configure my
> default editor, and my keyboard layout causes some
> more problems too:
> - I hate prefixes which are shared by a lot of
>   identifiers
> - I hate underscores in general
> For the Heathens and the Users Of Inferior Tools out there,
> Emacs provides a dynamic completion function for identifiers.
> Type in " s u b s <F11>" (or whatever key is used to invoke
> the function), and the editor searches the file and will perhaps
> present you "subSequenceSpecifier". Repeatedly pressing the
> autocompletion key will present other possible completions.
> Obviously this is the reason why I have no fear of long
> identifiers, and in fact I *like* them, because random abbrvs
> can introduce subtle differences which can be overlooked during
> autocompletion.
> Another effect is, if there are more than a few identifiers
> in the file (or other files as they are searched too) which
> share a common prefix, I have to type the prefix *and* a few
> more characters to get the correct completion after the first
> or at least after the second hit. That's why I'm not very fond
> of prefixes, the longer the worse, and any rules which encode
> whatever common information in prefixes.
> Using underscores in the prefix or to separate the prefix from
> the real identifier makes it worse again. Obviously, I have to
> key in the prefix and the underscore, which presents a few
> interesting problems, in particular if the identifier is
> camelCased. Keying in the underscore requires using the shift
> key. If I miss this due to hasty typing, I get a dash, and the
> completion won't complete. If I press the shift key too long,
> the character after the underscore is capitalized, which
> causes the completion algorithm to be case sensitive, and again
> there is no match. Without the underscore, i never bother with
> the shift key, because then the completion algorithm is case
> insensitive and will even capitalize lower case characters
> already typed in if necessary.
> (note that this is not all that much a problem with the C
> words_separated_by_underscores style, as I can often invoke
> the completion successfully before an underscore has to be
> typed).
> As I already noted, this can be fixed, and perhaps enhanced
> to provide an even more intelligent completion algorithm, but
> I'd rather think I'd take advantage of other people's dislikes
> and get rules which will be ignored sooner or later anyway
> canned before too much efford is wasted to introduce and
> enforce them.
> Does this explain and help to understand my position?
> J.Pietschmann
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to