Identifier Naming

[AgentOrange]

In article <1osp8dzdh9ihy$.yoi1lhqbyw8f$.dlg at 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>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


#1 I completely agree with you

#2 Please look at the DMD front end written by Walter Bright ;)