Module naming conventions
Sean Kelly
sean at f4.ca
Sun Nov 18 21:46:01 PST 2007
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
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list