From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A634FBC0A for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:51:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [216.148.227.151]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2G3pCA2013340 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:51:13 +0100 Received: from [10.0.1.3] (failure[69.181.116.221]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20070316035109m1100erh20e>; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:51:09 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <20070315234809.GA6544@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20070315224000.674E3BC82@yquem.inria.fr> <00ca01c76756$d8492870$6a7ba8c0@treble> <20070315234809.GA6544@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Qu=F4c_Peyrot?= Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Style and organization of code Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:51:00 -0700 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45FA1430.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; lrde:01 unreadable:01 unreadable:01 notation:01 underscores:01 notation:01 underscores:01 amusing:01 2007,:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 argument:02 argument:02 On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:08:28PM -0000, David Allsopp wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:25:37PM -0500, ian wrote: >>>> Say I have a function called "solveHardProblem". >>> >>> Ack! studlyCaps is horrible and unreadable (I know - I'm currently >>> involved in a project which uses them). Try "solve_hard_problem" >>> instead. >> Horrible and unreadable? We seem to be forgetting that camel =20 >> notation versus >> underscores is entirely a matter of taste... I have no problem =20 >> reading camel >> notation and find underscores ugly (not to mention harder to type =20 >> than >> caps). I've always found the argument "the standard library uses this >> notation" to be a very weak argument typically coming from more =20 >> senior >> programmers who're clutching at straws to justify their opinions ;o) >> >> I'm glad that, most of the time, the only standard library =20 >> functions I use >> with underscores are {type}_of_{other type} or {to|from|of}_{type} =20= >> so don't >> happen too often. >> >> (amusing aside: I once worked for a company that mixed the two... =20 >> giving >> solve_Hard_Problem which was particularly tedious!!) > > noIReallyThingYouReWrongAboutThisOne. To quote gaim/HACKING: "Coding styles are like assholes, everyone has one and no one likes anyone elses." - Eric Warmenhoven --=20 Best Regards, Qu=F4c=