Phango

[Alix Pexton]

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.
> 
> Regards,
> renoX
> 
I've not used every part of Phobos, and some parts of it do grate a little, but I do not find it confusing the way that I sometimes do with Tango. I have notthing at all against the use of CamelCase, but I think that it should be used in different ways in different places. I just feel that it is bad practice to have the same naming scheme for modules and classes.

A...