Identifier Naming

Wang Zhen nehzgnaw at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 23:25:41 PST 2006


Derek Parnell wrote:
> 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.
> 

Avoid English words. Problem solved.



More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list