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.

> > You don't need to create a separate .mli (in fact, you sometimes
> > can't).
> Eh? When does ocamlc -i Foo.ml > Foo.mli ever fail? I too always pair a .mli
> file with a .ml file even if the signature is exactly the same.

I meant for defining the type of just an inner module on its own.
It's generally a good idea to define types of interfaces in .mli
files.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones
Red Hat