Phango

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

renoX wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund a écrit :
>> renoX wrote:
>> 
>>> Kris a écrit :
>>>> There's a fair chance the poster below is actually Janice, but just in
>>>> case there really is someone voicing an honest opinion there, read on
>>>> ...
>>> Uh? That's my honest opinion: when contributors add new code in a
>>> project, reusing the same style as the other code is a sign of
>>> professional/mature programmers (ok, amateurish was too strong sorry)
>> 
>> Indeed, and Tango is quite a different project from Phobos (not counting
>> the runtime).
> 
> *Sigh*, would you have a look at the big picture please?
> 
> People wants to use both Tango and Phobos, that's why there have been
> complaints of incompatibility between both.
> 
> Tango will be made compatible with Phobos in D2.0, that's very nice but
> one step even better than compatibility is coherence.
> 
> Phobos is the default standard library, so the true question is not "why
> project XXX should use the same way as Phobos?" but "why project XXX
> didn't use the 'Phobos way'?".
> 
> A valid answer could be "this part of Phobos sucks because YYY", that
> would be okay: nobody claimed that Phobos is perfect, just that it is
> the default.
> 
> So in this case, why Phobos convention of module naming isn't good enough?
> For me, it is.

I think it was already said, but we think that for any larger project
CamelCase is more readable, something that also apply to module names. I
also think it is a perfectly valid reason to distinguish a module name from
the package it is in.

Also note that (partially in reply to Pexton too) although someone wants to
use both Tango and Phobos in the same project, there isn't any technical
reason to do so beyond possibly some functionality not being present in
both places. This tends to be fixed in Tango if there is a compelling
reason to do so, though.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango