Phango - questions

[Alix Pexton]

Kris wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com>
>> 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.
> 
> Oh that's easy to answer: we understood those to be guidelines only, and 
> felt that some minor details would need adjustment for our purposes. I 
> recall there was some technical difficulty regarding module names at the 
> time, but don't recall the specifics right now.
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Are you sure about that? :p
> 
> 
>>> 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:
> 
> The effort is appreciated Bill, but realistically, Tango is not going to 
> change in this manner. As has been noted several times prior, one persons 
> stylistic meat is another's stylistic poison. There's no resolving that, and 
> we have no wish to attempt to. It's a dilemma, and the kind of religious 
> distinction that people would kill each other for in the past (and still do, 
> actually).
> 
> Certain individuals cannot see past that, and find bitter resentment in the 
> use of the shift-key here and there. Yet, the same folks are staying quiet 
> about toString() and so on. Let's face it, function/method names are used 
> more often than import names for example. So, I feel (a) this issue is daft 
> and/or myopic to begin with (b) there's nothing that could be done without 
> upsetting the stylistic preferences of others (c) there's little value in 
> paying heed to the opinion of those who "refuse" to use a library simply 
> because it doesn't adhere to one tiny stylistic notion, which couldn't in 
> practice be changed anyway. Better for us to listen to people who are 
> willing to be a little flexible.
> 
> Cheers;
> 
> 
Why aren't you listening? it's not "simply stylistic"!

A...