在 2006/8/11 下午 2:35 時,Luke Palmer 寫到:
I think that standard functions ought not to have underscores *most of
the time*, because their presence indicates something that could be
better named or is miscategorized.  However, for methods, especially
"advanced" or introspective methods, I think longer names that
describe the action are better than short ones that only describe the
action if you understand the pun.  Huffman coding does not imply that
*everything* is short.


.SKID and the like are methods of Object, and as such should be considered
part of the standard functions, as they are available to all terms.

Methods for the other implicit-coerced-to types (Bit/Int/Num/Str/ List) share this concern; because all terms may be coerced implicitly into them, their
methods also have unbounded visibility.

For other built-in types, I think underscore names are just fine. For example, metaclass methods such as "Class.has_method" should indeed remain as such. :)

Thanks,
Audrey

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to