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  
>> notation versus
>> underscores is entirely a matter of taste... I have no problem  
>> reading camel
>> notation and find underscores ugly (not to mention harder to type  
>> than
>> caps). I've always found the argument "the standard library uses this
>> notation" to be a very weak argument typically coming from more  
>> senior
>> programmers who're clutching at straws to justify their opinions ;o)
>>
>> I'm glad that, most of the time, the only standard library  
>> functions I use
>> with underscores are {type}_of_{other type} or {to|from|of}_{type}  
>> so don't
>> happen too often.
>>
>> (amusing aside: I once worked for a company that mixed the two...  
>> 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

-- 
Best Regards,
Quôc