COBOL style. People will have an easier time reading XML-HTTP-REQUEST than either of the alternatives listed above.
Kevin On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Brian Anderson <bander...@mozilla.com>wrote: > On 08/02/2013 06:28 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Brendan Eich emailed me expressing a preference for `GC<>` over `Gc<>`. I >> think now is as good a time as any to have the bikeshedding debate :) >> >> I've noticed two styles for acronyms in type names: Java style >> (HTTPServer) versus .NET style (HttpServer). Currently we are usually using >> .NET style, but inconsistently (e.g. ARC). We never really decided. >> >> Here are a few examples of types in each style: >> >> * Java style: GC<Foo>, ARC<int>, SimpleHTTPServer, XMLHTTPRequest. >> >> * .NET style: Gc<Foo>, Arc<int>, SimpleHttpServer, XmlHttpRequest. >> >> I slightly prefer Java style myself because I think "GC" looks better >> than "Gc", because Web APIs use Java style, and because Python does (e.g. >> SimpleHTTPServer) and in general we've been following PEP 8. But I don't >> feel strongly on this issue. >> >> Thoughts/straw poll? >> > > I prefer .NET style and have thus far been on a crusade to convert the > standard libraries to this convention. > > ______________________________**_________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
