I am starting to play with Rust, but I got stuck early on with a trivial
TCP client example. (There's a few server examples out there, but I
couldn't find a single working client anywhere. I tried the archives,
the tests, etc.)
My naive approach sends some data to the server and then attempts to
+1 for keeping the syntax as is i.e. the - as part of the return
signature. It's more readable and it does not mislead people into the fact
that there is no partial function application in rust (which IMHO is one of
the main reasons to keep the syntax the same between argument and return
types).
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
I prefer .NET style for no particular reason at all.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com 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
On 08/02/2013 06:28 PM, Patrick Walton 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
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com 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
Java style. My eyeballs like it better and it 'flows' better visually. The .net
humps look ugly.
-- my 2¢
Regards,
Paul Nathan
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
Brendan Eich emailed me expressing a preference for `GC`
COBOL style. People will have an easier time reading XML-HTTP-REQUEST than
either of the alternatives listed above.
Kevin
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 08/02/2013 06:28 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
Hi everyone,
Brendan Eich emailed me
On 03.08.2013 03:28, Patrick Walton 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
Thoughts/straw poll?
I prefer .NET style and have thus far been on a crusade to convert the
standard libraries to this convention.
+1 for .NET style. There are often multiple acronyms in a row, and
then it's really hard to parse. Also with .NET style, you get working
M-f and M-b in emacs, if
That is an interesting but complicated idea. Ogre caps when an acronym is
alone, camel when acronyms are adjacent.
GCBFGBfgGc
I feel like this is the sort of thing we should not decide collaboratively but
instead should have beaten into us by a glorious dictator. I'm not sure this
discussion
Straw polling: +1 for Java style.
It works in the favor of the audience. Arcint looks like it may represent an
actual Arc trait, ARCint is an indicator I don't understand some component
and should be going straight to wikipedia. Being clever about capitalization
limits intuition.
Tim
On Aug
On 8/2/13 7:38 PM, Tom Lee wrote:
Bikeshedding is right ;)
I'm probably a weirdo but I like the Java style when the type name is
the acronym in its entirety, but the .NET style when you mix it up with
other stuff.
e.g. I prefer GC to Gc, but then I prefer SimpleHttpServer to
SimpleHTTPServer
Agreed -- I don't particularly care, so long as it's consistent.
I guess wrt camel-casing acronyms, it'd be nice to avoid stuff like
HttpURLConnectionhttp://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/net/HttpURLConnection.htmlwhich
uses some bastardry of capitalization to avoid the unfortunate
On 03/08/2013, at 12:25 PM, Jeaye je...@arrownext.com wrote:
To be fair, and I like being fair, both of these are inconsistent within
Rust. If functions_are_like_this then types Should_Be_Like_This or
Maybe_like_this.
Having different significantly different styles for types, functions
15 matches
Mail list logo
