Selon Krekna Mektek <krekna / gmail.com>:

>
> By the way, why are methods not named following the lowercaseUppercase
> convention, as in Java?
> This way I can see more directly that something is a method, and not
> an instance variable.
>

Why? instance variables always begin with @, and methods can't, and I'd say that
sigil is clear enough as it is (enough that I've heard some people complain
about its presence). For the rest, something like "obj.var = 5" is *always* a
method call anyway (you needn't actually have a @var instance variable in your
obj, you can simply define a var=() method), so there's no confusion possible.

> I'd like to do it that way, but am not sure if this is against some
> Ruby philosophy..
>

I used to be a fan of camelCase for methods myself, but I changed my mind after
reading a lot of Ruby code. CamelCase is alright for class names, since they
begin with a capital already, but if you begin to use it with method names it
become quickly unreadable (in hindsight, I think it's one of the reasons I've
always found Java code confusing). And there's no possibility to confuse
methods and instance variables anyway.
--
Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.