I find something contradictory : http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/variables/#stylistic-conventions
*Names of functions and macros are in lower case, without underscores.* On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 3:07:46 PM UTC+2, Scott Jones wrote: > > Umm... the style guide for Julia says *to* use underscore for longer > names, *not* camelcase: > > > - modules and type names use capitalization and camel case:module > SparseMatrix, immutable UnitRange. > - functions are lowercase (maximum() > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.maximum> > , convert() > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/base/#Base.convert>) > and, when readable, with multiple words squashed together (isequal() > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/base/#Base.isequal>, > haskey() > > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.haskey>). > When necessary, use underscores as word separators. Underscores are also > used to indicate a combination of concepts (remotecall_fetch() > > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/parallel/#Base.remotecall_fetch> > as > a more efficient implementation of remotecall(fetch(...))) or as > modifiers (sum_kbn() > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/arrays/#Base.sum_kbn> > ). > - conciseness is valued, but avoid abbreviation (indexin() > > <http://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.3/stdlib/collections/#Base.indexin> > rather > thanindxin()) as it becomes difficult to remember whether and how > particular words are abbreviated. > > Personally, I think the Julia style guide gets it right... also, there > have even been studies that show that words separated by _ are easier to > read (>20% faster to read!) than words with no spaces and camel cased... > > Scott > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 6:43:44 AM UTC-4, François Fayard wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would like to talk about naming convention. I think it's fine to have >> short names in a langage with few keywords such as C (memcpy), but a >> langage such as Julia that wants to be also high level with a huge standard >> library needs convention because the langage might become very large. I >> find the convention used by Mathematica the best ever made. Nothing is >> shortened except a few exceptions and consistent use of CamlCase. On the >> other hand, Matlab is probably one of the worst thing that happen in terms >> of naming: no consistency at all! I suspect that Cleve Moler who started >> Matlab not used LAPACK but also the Fortran 77 naming convention which was >> only there only for technical reasons ;-) >> >> I've seen that the naming convention for function in Julia looks like the >> same as in Python: everything must be lowercase, and don't use underscore. >> Let's look at different naming conventions, the first one being the one >> used by Julia. >> >> 1) daysinmonth() >> 2) daysInMonth() >> 3) days_in_month() >> >> I find the first one the most difficult to read. I tend to prefer the >> last one, but the second one is also easy to read. The fact that Julia uses >> the first one and the fact that many names are shortened, makes reading >> code with functions you've never seen a pain. For instance reading a name >> "iso..." my mind does not understand if we at talking about a function that >> returns a Bool ("is" suggests that) or something that has been standardised >> (ISO). Using the second naming convention would make things easier. Also it >> would prevent people using underscores as we have in the standard library >> without any clear reason. >> >> I don't find any disadvantage for the second naming convention over the >> first one. So why do people use the first one? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
