Naming convention in Phobos

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/6/11 9:27 AM, foobar wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> "Jim"<bitcirkel at yahoo.com>  wrote in message
>> news:ikvped$1o35$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Okay, so there's a discussion about identifier names in the proposed
>>> std.path replacement -- should they be abbreviated or not?
>>> Should we perhaps seek to have a consistent naming convention for all
>>> identifier names in Phobos?
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of the potential benefits:
>>>
>>> • Legibility, understandability and clarity (reduce ambiguity).
>>> • Ease in finding a suitable function/class by name.
>>> • Knowing if it's a cheap or costly function call.
>>> • Aesthetics and professional appearance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some properties that I can think of for discussion:
>>>
>>> • Abbreviation (and if so, what to abbreviate and how much)?
>>> • Preference of commonly used terms in other languages, contexts?
>>> • Use of get and set prefixes or not (getName() or simply name())?
>>> • Explicit use of a prefix (example: calc or calculate) for costly
>>> operations?
>>> • Naming of function and template arguments?
>>> • Uppercase, lowercase, camelcase, underscore in multi-word names? All
>>> caps for constants, or different appearance for different types (types,
>>> functions, arguments, constants...). What about acronyms: TCP, Tcp?
>>>
>>> Are there other concerns?
>>
>> I think that every individual variable, function and type in Phobos should
>> use the naming convention of whatever random language the author happened to
>> be thinking of when they wrote it. That way Phobos won't seem messy. Plus,
>> the lack of any sensible rules would make it super-easy to remember all the
>> different spellings, punctuations and capitalizations.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I would also add to the above excellent point that in order to prevent unworthy people of programming in the holly

You have a typo there.

Andrei