On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 11:20 +0100, Ugo Cei wrote: > Il giorno 05/nov/05, alle ore 08:46, Sylvain Wallez ha scritto: > > >> So let's make other proposals. Let's consider wiget > >> "foo.bar" (e.g. a fd:field in a fd:group) and the ID of its <input>. > >> - "foo.bar..input": the '.' is doubled, which can never conflict > >> with a widget's full name > >> - "foo.bar._input": generated element's name starts with a > >> character that we can forbid as the first character of widget names > >> > >> I prefer the first one (double '.') which is IMO more readable > >> than the second. > > > > Another one, which looks more natural: "foo.bar.input.": the > > trailing '.' ensures it cannot conflict with a widget's full name > > The fact that it is not that readable might be a plus. The problem > with double dots or a dot at the end is that it's easy to miss when > reading the code. an extra '_' sticks out more and won't be missed as > easily.
agreed, +1 for the underscore -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
