On 11 July 2016 at 19:33, Arthur Griffith <agriff...@desertowlgames.com>

> I completely understand the desire to follow a convention, but ill make
> some arguments here
>    - *C# conventions are not strong. *This is a bit of a 'musing', but I
>    have found that C# developers do not tend to follow a single standard, most
>    probably because there is no official standard. Notice the initial
>    requester even suggests Pascal OR camel case for enums. I even believe
>    different editors enforce the standards differently.
> I would very strongly disagree with this - while I would say that C#
developers have multiple standards for *private* members, the conventions
for *public* members are pretty much universally used in my experience. Not
only the whole MS framework, but just about every reputable open source
framework follows the same conventions.

My own experience (and feedback from the team) is that it's *much* nicer to
use enums now that it was before. It feels properly idiomatic.

>    - *Programmer Choice. *Even the initial suggestion that was linked
>    suggests adding it as an option.
> I think there is an argument to be made to allow the programmer to choose. In
> my case, I have several hundred enums that are actually being used to
> define classes to be loaded reflectively. So to me, the enum names are
> significant.

There was discussion on this internally, and the decision was for this not
to be an option in the long run.

Note that this isn't so very different to what we're doing elsewhere - the
property/method names are adjusted to the idiom of the language, for


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to