> I agree that the internal variables should have ugly underscored
> names. The problem is that it's not exactly trivial to replace
> everything in a way that doesn't trash someone else's existing app or
> plugin. I'd suggest starting a git branch started and having folks
> run it against their
On 7/6/08, Bryan Liles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2008, at 3:51 AM, tonypm wrote:
>
> > I have been bitten by errors, and template name clashes and the like,
> > but coming up with an extended name in the app is usually fairly
> > trivial.
> >
>
>
> This is where I take issue.
On Jul 6, 2008, at 3:51 AM, tonypm wrote:
> I have been bitten by errors, and template name clashes and the like,
> but coming up with an extended name in the app is usually fairly
> trivial.
>
This is where I take issue. Coding around the framework feels weird.
> After all, you are going to
Whilst the point is entirely valid, IMHO there is equally a sense of
'polluting' the code with loads of __ stuff. The thing I really like
about ruby and rails is the nice readability factor.
I have been bitten by errors, and template name clashes and the like,
but coming up with an extended nam
On Jul 3, 2008, at 9:45 AM, cbs wrote:
>
> I heartily support your observations: losing so many names to
> "reserved" status is so incongruous in this so-called modern age of
> technology! For those of us who enjoyed the world of FORTRAN, a
> construct which had no reserved words, losing such co
I heartily support your observations: losing so many names to
"reserved" status is so incongruous in this so-called modern age of
technology! For those of us who enjoyed the world of FORTRAN, a
construct which had no reserved words, losing such common nouns as
"type", "error", "group", etc (espec
