Phango

[Bill Baxter]

torhu wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>  >> Mixed case package/module names are avoided because there needs to be a
>>> 1:1 correspondence between file names and package/module names, and not
>>> all file systems are case sensitive (like FAT32 and NTFS, for a couple
>>> widely used examples).
>>
>> As I said elsewhere in the thread, other FS _are_ case sensitive, and 
>> thus
>> you need to be aware of which case you use in either case, rendering the
>> argument moot. Early on in D history, I encountered several cases of
>> modules being saved on Windows, then not working on Linux with their
>> intended module names due to this. And this can only happen if the 
>> Windows
>> programmer typed in a file name with upper case letters, even though the
>> module name was all lower case.
>>
> 
> I believe Walter's point is that "all package and module names are lower 
> case" is a simple rule that will help us avoid this problem, given that 
> everyone does their best to adhere to the rule.  I don't know how much 
> it matters, since I've never run into the problem myself.  But I just 
> tried it, and it shouldn't be hard to track down the problem based on 
> the compiler's error messages.  Not a big deal either way, it seems.

There is another issue.  Often a module has basically only one main 
class in it.  If the main class is called Foo, and that's all that's in 
the module, some version of "Foo" is the logical name for the package 
too.  But then if you use fully qualified names you end up with 
Package.Foo.Foo when referring to the class in the module, which just 
look *so* silly that it's easy to forget the second Foo.  But 
package.foo.Foo looks more reasonable, since it's clear the second to 
last "foo" is not a class name.

--bb