On 31 mar 2011, at 19:30, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > The current style used in Phobos is an underscore before the name. It's also > likely to be frequent that a member variable has a property which goes with > it, meaning that it _has_ to be named slightly differently. How much the > exact > naming scheme matters though depends on how much consistency we want within > Phobos. It's _not_ part of the public API, so it's purely a matter of > consistency in coding style. If we don't care all that much in keeping all of > Phobos' internal stuff consistent in style, then this sort of rule isn't > necessary. If we want obe consistent though, a choice needs to be made, and > the underscore before is currently what's being used (it's also what I, > personally, prefer - as does Andrei, I believ). But really, the main question > is whether we _want_ to be this exacting about private names.
What about public members? Wouldn't it be a little inconsistent to have public members named with camel case and private members with a leading underscore or is that the whole point? > I would love that and think that it would be a _big_ improvement, but there > are some folks (Andrei in particular) who seem to really not like code going > beyond 80 characters. I do know that there are other Phobos devs who _do_ > want > longer line lengths though, so maybe we can change this. Where this really > gets to be a problem is with lines with several levels of indentation, and > trying to restrict the line length (particularly to something short like 80 > characters) tends to encourage overly short and non-descriptive variable and > function names, which is _not_ good. Can't everyone that likes to keep the horizontal length to 80 characters use word wrapping? -- /Jacob Carlborg _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
