Phango

Lars Ivar Igesund larsivar at igesund.net
Sun Nov 18 12:17:24 PST 2007


Alix Pexton wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> Firstly, I think it quite rude to refer to me by my surname alone, even if
> you are unsure if you are making the correct assumption it would be polite
> to prefix Mr.

Deeply sorry for this Alix, I usually get such things right, and I don't
tend to use mother language as an excuse for such errors. So, sorry again.

> 
> Secondly, my gripe has nothing to do with using Tango and Phobos together
> and I don't know where in what I have written I might have given that
> impression.

Right, misinterpreted the section where you said it conflicted with your
style. I took this to mean that you followed Phobos' style, but apparently
it did not.

> 
> I will give you credit, Tango is very consistent in its style and much of
> the code is very elegant, but I believe very strongly that the decision to
> use mixed case identifiers for BOTH module names AND classes was a
> mistake.
> 
> All the other issues I have with the layout of the library stem from this,
> but it seems that you are an immovable object, and alas I am not an
> unstoppable force.

We're not immovable, we just don't understand the issue :)

> 
> I wish you all the best with your library...

Thanks!

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



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list