F i L Wrote: > I personally find it much easier to remember and use longer, more > sentance-like method names. However, Jonathan and others > obviously feel more comfortable writing with a high level of > abbreviation, which they justify rather well. Still, if D's goal > is to gain popularity, I think it should take notices of other > rising languages like C#. > > The problem with making any change to Phobos is backwards > compatibility. So, what if there was a way to satisfy both > parties and keep backwards compatibility? Is there any compelling > reason why simply wrapping Phobos into a different format would > be such bad thing? Meaning: > > // system.io > > private import std.stdio; > > alias write Write; > alias writeln WriteLine; > // etc... > > Besides keeping things in-sync and error messages referring to > the original function names (which could be amended), I don't see > why such a library couldn't be written as a way to make the > language easier to swallow to potential D users coming from > Java/C#. Microsoft used similar tactics with J#/F# to help the > Java/Python folks adapt their code to .NET.
good idea ! can refer to the java c # naming specification, to work out d own naming specification good luck£¡ Bill