Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)
Georg Bauhaus <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Stephen Leake schrieb:
>> Op_1 (onto => list, element => object_1);
>> Op_2 (from => list, element => object_2);
>> Op_3 (container => list, element => object_3);
>> It's much easier if it's always "list => list".
> Well, ease as an excuse... I find it much easier to write
> C++, fast; C++ at some level is much easier and more
> permissive---easier until there is some odd crash
> and you look through the large combinatorial array of
> generic library names(!) in a long diagnostic message...
I meant easier in all senses; fewer compiler errors, fewer real
errors, less development time.
> I think the ease argument will be interesting if it becomes
> clear what the Op_N stand for, respectively.
If you start asking about what they stand for, you've missed the
point. I should not have to waste time thinking about that; I know
they come from the list package, so the type is List_Type, and the
parameter name is List. Now I can think about the _other_ parameters.
> Cf. valid Eiffel:
> string: STRING
> ... -- more uses of string and STRING. Or StrINg.
That is the argument both for and against case sensitivity.