On 2011-06-16 09:21, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > I'm afraid that I don't understand this view at all, given that > > string is a word and stringz isn't, though there are a few people > > that have expressed this view now. > > If we had a function for to!ulong in this style, would you call it > toULong or toUlong? > > I'd expect the latter - the word is "ulong", a single unit, > not "U Long". > > D1 also did it this way: > http://digitalmars.com/d/1.0/phobos/std_conv.html
I'd probably end up calling it to ULong, since U stands for unsigned and it looks a lot better that way, but since ulong is a type name, I could easily see it being named toUlong. However, I don't see what that has to do with toStringz. stringz is neither a type nor a word. The _only_ place that stringz is used AFAIK is in the name toStringz, where the zero presumably stands for zero, as in zero-terminated string. If stringz were a type in D, then yeah, toStringz would be properly camelcased, but stringz isn't a type. - Jonathan M Davis
