On 2011-03-31 11:39, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > 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?
If a member variable is public, then it's effectively a property. It's just a variable instead of a function. And it could be replaced by a property function later - generally with the idea that client code would not have to be changed. Private member variables are different beasts altogether. It is common to give private member variables a naming convention which differs from local variables in order to distinguish them. When you have properties with the same names, then it becomes a necessity. Now, it's fine with me if we don't dictate how member variables are named - as long as it's understood that they will not always match the normal naming scheme. Personally, I use a leading underscore. I also don't like it when there's mixture of styles between private member variables (e.g. some with an underscore nad some without), but that's my personal preference. The only reason I see to select a style is if we want Phobos to be consistent. But while some people think that Phobos should be highly consistent in its styling throughout, I don't think that it necessarily matters. What matters is the public API. _That_ should strive for consistency, because that affects the users of the library. The style of the implementation details does not. - Jonathan M Davis _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
