I don't think I understand your reasoning. Enum members can't
have names which are also keywords, hence enums should be
capitalised? You could equally well use this argument for *all* D
symbols...
Yes, we could (and in fact, I'd advocate for a D version of C#'s @
symbol for marking keywords as
On 03/08/2011 11:00 AM, %u wrote:
I don't think I understand your reasoning. Enum members can't
have names which are also keywords, hence enums should be
capitalised? You could equally well use this argument for *all* D
symbols...
Yes, we could (and in fact, I'd advocate for a D version of
Fortunately, these are very not any kind of most logical
choices. Neither according to D's own naming convention, nore
(imo) according to plain common sense. I have the same kind of use
case as you, apparently (including even a 'TypeCodes' enum!), and
thank to D's very weird naming, /I/ can use
On 03/08/2011 07:28 PM, %u wrote:
Fortunately, these are very not any kind ofmost logical
choices. Neither according to D's own naming convention, nore
(imo) according to plain common sense. I have the same kind of use
case as you, apparently (including even a 'TypeCodes' enum!), and
thank to
On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:28:11 %u wrote:
Fortunately, these are very not any kind of most logical
choices. Neither according to D's own naming convention, nore
(imo) according to plain common sense. I have the same kind of use
case as you, apparently (including even a 'TypeCodes'
On 6 March 2011 12:38, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 02:59:25 Jim wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not? Should we
perhaps seek to have a consistent naming
On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 15:42:47 Emil Madsen wrote:
Just a thought, is there some sort of tool whats able to check if a code
follow these standards?
And if its the case, why isn't it used? - so people are forced to conform
to the coding standard before being able to commit anything.
No one
On 06/03/11 18.50, Jim wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 02:59:25 Jim wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not? Should we
perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for
The general naming convention as far as variable names go is camelcased with
the name starting with a lower case letter - this includes constants. Most of
Phobos follows this, and the parts that
haven't been have been moving towards it. There are likely to be a few
exceptions, but on the
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:36:11 +, %u wrote:
The general naming convention as far as variable names go is camelcased
with the name starting with a lower case letter - this includes
constants. Most of Phobos follows this, and the parts that
haven't been have been moving towards it. There are
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed std.path
replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all
identifier names in Phobos?
Some of the potential benefits:
Legibility, understandability and
On Sunday 06 March 2011 02:59:25 Jim wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not? Should we
perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all identifier
names in Phobos?
Some of the
Jim Wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed std.path
replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all
identifier names in Phobos?
Some of the potential benefits:
Legibility,
, lowercase, camelcase, underscore in multi-word names? All caps
for constants, or different appearance for different types (types, functions,
arguments, constants...). What about acronyms: TCP, Tcp?
Are there other concerns?
Phobos naming convention should be a major adjustment!
thanks all
Jim bitcir...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ikvped$1o35$1...@digitalmars.com...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all
identifier
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Jim bitcir...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ikvped$1o35$1...@digitalmars.com...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming
On 3/6/11 9:27 AM, foobar wrote:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Jimbitcir...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ikvped$1o35$1...@digitalmars.com...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
Should we perhaps seek to
On 03/06/2011 04:27 PM, foobar wrote:
Are there other concerns?
I think that every individual variable, function and type in Phobos should
use the naming convention of whatever random language the author happened to
be thinking of when they wrote it. That way Phobos won't seem messy.
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 3/6/11 9:27 AM, foobar wrote:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Jimbitcir...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ikvped$1o35$1...@digitalmars.com...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated
spir Wrote:
On 03/06/2011 04:27 PM, foobar wrote:
Are there other concerns?
I think that every individual variable, function and type in Phobos
should
use the naming convention of whatever random language the author
happened to
be thinking of when they wrote it. That way
foobar f...@bar.com wrote:
I would also add to the above excellent point that in order to
prevent unworthy people of programming in the holly
You have a typo there.
Andrei
Well than I must be unworthy of the D community. I must flee before you
come chasing me with pitchforks...
A
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 02:59:25 Jim wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not? Should we
perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all identifier
names in
Jim wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 02:59:25 Jim wrote:
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not? Should we
perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all identifier
names
On 03/06/2011 04:54 PM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 3/6/11 9:27 AM, foobar wrote:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
Jimbitcir...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ikvped$1o35$1...@digitalmars.com...
Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
std.path
Simen kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:op.vrxix902vxi10f@biotronic-laptop...
foobar f...@bar.com wrote:
I would also add to the above excellent point that in order to
prevent unworthy people of programming in the holly
You have a typo there.
Andrei
Well than I must
25 matches
Mail list logo
