From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <56a297000703071717p428ef9b9j58d671f51f28d142@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  8 Mar 2007 10:17:28 +0900
From: "Noah Evans" <noah.evans@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9 function names
In-Reply-To: <87tzwwvr2t.fsf@wmipf.in-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <87tzwwvr2t.fsf@wmipf.in-berlin.de>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1a75e0fa-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/pikestyle.html

On 3/8/07, Michael Teichgr=E4ber <mt@wmipf.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there a reason why underscores are avoided in most function and
> variable names on Plan 9? I have used this style for a while now, and
> it seems to me that it increases the over-all code readability, as
> names or function calls can be more easily recognized. Without
> underscores one has to look for shorter or more to the point
> function/variable names. But sometimes an ambiguity might remain, since
> words are not separated from each other.
>
> Or, is it just a habit without a specific reason?
>
> Michael
>