Identifier Naming

[Derek Parnell]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:25:29 +0000 (UTC), AgentOrange wrote:

> In article <dulcq5$8cj$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Lucas Goss says...
>>
>>Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Changed on_scope keywords per the general consensus of the n.g.
>>
>>nooooooooooooooooooooooooo... I guess I was the only one that didn't 
>>like the proposed change of scope(...). Inconsistencies in d drive me 
>>mad (crazy). I love the language and hate it at the same time.
>>
>>The other changes are nice though, nice work.
> 
> this especially bites for those of us using scope as an identifier...  :(

This is kinda off topic but I can't understand why coders still use
standard words for identifiers. I mean after all these years of experience
with computing languages, this is one common source of bugs and problems. 

So to make coding life easier, just stop using single normal words for
identifiers. Pick a naming convention that prevents this habit and the
chances you are going to clash with reserved words is greatly reduced. It
not really all that hard.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/03/2006 4:36:11 PM