Naming convention in Phobos

[dolive]

Jim Wrote:

> 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?

 Phobos naming convention should be a major adjustment!

thanks all !

dolive