Phango - questions

[Bill Baxter]

Kris wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote
> 
>> It seems to me the burden should be on the Tango developers here, as the 
>> newcomers, to explain to the world why the Tango convention is better, 
>> rather than asking everyone else to justify why the pre-existing and 
>> already established convention is better.
> 
> Newcomers? Tango has been in development for almost 4 years, Bill. 

Yes, newcomers.  4 is less than 10.  That makes you newcomers relative 
to phobos and the D style guide Walter has had posted up on 
digitalmars.com that I presume is about as old as phobos.  That's all I 
meant.

> As for 
> conventions, it is my opinion that Tango doesn't have to justify the choices 
> made to anyone at this point. It's water under the bridge, just as the some 
> minor stylistic choices in phobos or D are now just water under the bridge. 
> As Walter already noted: Tango can use whatever style it wants.

Yes, Tango can use whatever style it wants, but obviously some choices 
are better than others.  Nobody here is arguing that RanDoM CaSE for 
module names would be a good thing, for instance.

> moving along, I believe Sean's two questions (posted much earlier, which I 
> repeated on his behalf) were intended to elicit some positive feedback?

Yes.  I do wish certain parties would stick to the issues here.
Elsewhere in this thread some constructive points have been mentioned 
pro and con lowercase module names.  I'll try to summarize without 
injecting any biases:

In favor of lower case module names:
* It's a de-facto standard established by Walter
* OS Case sensitivity (or lack thereof)
* Redundancy in fully qualified names (package.ClassName.ClassName)

In favor of mixed case module names:
* Easier to remember module names when there's a one-to-one 
correspondence with the class name.



--bb