On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 8:50 PM Bilge <bi...@scriptfusion.com> wrote:
> On 19/04/2024 18:42, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > The two weeks of discussion are over now, the RFC didn't receive any > substantial changes after the initial proposal, and neither was there any > significant content-related feedback after the first few days. > > As such, I plan to open the vote early next week without making further > changes to the RFC text. > > Best regards > Tim Düsterhus > > Hi Tim, > > Not that my opinion counts for much, but I have to say I find this very > odd. > > Good class names: > Id // Identifier > ID // Identity Document > > I understand the distinction you wish to make here, between an acronym and > abbreviation, but I think it's a meaningless distinction. In this case, > `Id` would be fine for "identifier", but "Identity Document" should simply > be `IdentityDocument`. Whilst the distinction may seem meaningful to you, > it certainly does not look that way to me; I think it would be difficult to > remember and explain to someone else. Perhaps the tie breaker could be that > it wouldn't be meaningful to an automated style checker, either. That is, > it would be difficult to enforce this policy exception in any automated > way. Why not just keep it simple and consistent here, disallowing runs of > multiple upper-case letters? > > Cheers, > Bilge > I was under the impression that this RFC was trying to solve exactly that, so I'm surprised to see that ID would be allowed.
