English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Style and organization of code
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-03-15 (23:08)
From: David Allsopp <dra-news@m...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Style and organization of code
> 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!!)


> 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.