Module naming conventions

[Sean Kelly]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
> 
>> *) Long established convention (~10 years) used by Phobos
> 
> About 6 years (2001), I think.
> 
>> *) Established convention (~4 years) used by Tango
> 
> Less than 1 year. Ares was around before (3 years ago, according to dsource), and also used camel case.

Actually, it didn't.  The CamelCase came to Tango from Mango, which was 
started perhaps 4 years ago by Kris.  Ares followed the Phobos style 
guidelines.

>> *) Fine granularity approaching one-module-per-class means D's linker 
>> will generate smaller executables.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this one so I don't have to read the whole Phango thread? Why is this true? And there can still be one-class-per-module (what's one-module-per-class? A typo or am I misunderstanding something?) even with a lower-case module naming convention, so that's not really an argument for camel case.

I think this may be a separate issue.  I was describing why Tango has so 
darn many modules, which I believe came up as a general stylistic 
difference between Phobos and Tango.


Sean