David Koontz wrote:
In all the time I've been doing JI work, I've never wanted to write a
method name that wasn't the canonical Ruby style name. So, for me and
the people I've been working with, I don't think any intermediary name
is really wanted or needed. Ideally we would use the Ruby name
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
Yeah in that case it does seem to make sense...how about modifying
things like so:
1. normal Java name
2. ruby name with underscores
IF PROPERTY {
3. java property name (minus get/set/is)
4. java property name with ? if boolean
5. ruby property name (java prop name with und
First off, let me say, "thank you, thank you, thank you". All of this
is wonderfully welcome improvements for us at Happy Camper.
On Aug 8, 2008, at 2:06 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
This extensive support of Ruby naming may be going too far. I'm
really looking for opinions on this, to
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>
>> Thomas E Enebo wrote:
7. java name with ? if boolean
8. ruby name with ? if boolean
>>>
>>> 7 and 8 do not seem right to me...
>>
>> So I think in misinterpreted som
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
7. java name with ? if boolean
8. ruby name with ? if boolean
7 and 8 do not seem right to me...
So I think in misinterpreted some code added in the last release to
support ? forms of properties. The code appeared to try to add such
names
Thomas E Enebo wrote:
1. normal Java name
2. ruby name with underscores
IF PROPERTY {
3. java property name (minus get/set/is)
4. java property name with ? if boolean
5. ruby property name (java prop name with underscores)
6. ruby property name with ? if boolean
}
7. java name with ? if boolean
8
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've added a couple enhancements over the past few weeks I figured I should
> list here for discussion.
>
> 0. Obviously, there's been a lot of performance work.
>
> 1. Closures can be passed to any method with an in
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
This extensive support of Ruby naming may be going too far. I'm
really looking for opinions on this, to see whether it's too much. In
general my primary goal was to allow users to use either straight-up
Java names or various gradations
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
I've added a couple enhancements over the past few weeks I figured I
should list here for discussion.
I like these features. Good job.
I had one thing that happened to me a few weeks ago that seemed a bit
strange. I'm writing unit tests for the Java parts of PKCS
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
This extensive support of Ruby naming may be going too far. I'm really
looking for opinions on this, to see whether it's too much. In general
my primary goal was to allow users to use either straight-up Java names
or various gradations of Ruby names, all the way to
I've added a couple enhancements over the past few weeks I figured I
should list here for discussion.
0. Obviously, there's been a lot of performance work.
1. Closures can be passed to any method with an interface as its last
argument; the closure will be converted to the target interface type
11 matches
Mail list logo
