I think I prefer .NET style. I liked the mixed approach, until I saw it applied to GC/GcMut and co. I'm ambivalent about grandfathering in IO: consistency is good, but Io /really does/ look unusually stupid, with other acronyms it's not as ingrained for whatever reason. (I wonder whether it has anything to do at a subconscious level with the fact that, in Input/Output, the two words are on the same level and independent, whereas in e.g. "garbage collected", the latter depends on the former... or whether it's just frequency of exposure.)
The one case where I don't like .NET is when an acronym also forms a familiar word, i.e. Arc. The solution there might just be to rename it to AtomicRc. (That would /also/ be helpful to avoid confusion with Apple's ARC.) On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Brendan Eich emailed me expressing a preference for `GC<>` over `Gc<>`. I > think now is as good a time as any to have the bikeshedding debate :) > > I've noticed two styles for acronyms in type names: Java style (HTTPServer) > versus .NET style (HttpServer). Currently we are usually using .NET style, > but inconsistently (e.g. ARC). We never really decided. > > Here are a few examples of types in each style: > > * Java style: GC<Foo>, ARC<int>, SimpleHTTPServer, XMLHTTPRequest. > > * .NET style: Gc<Foo>, Arc<int>, SimpleHttpServer, XmlHttpRequest. > > I slightly prefer Java style myself because I think "GC" looks better than > "Gc", because Web APIs use Java style, and because Python does (e.g. > SimpleHTTPServer) and in general we've been following PEP 8. But I don't > feel strongly on this issue. > > Thoughts/straw poll? > > Patrick > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev -- Your ship was destroyed in a monadic eruption. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
