Hi --

On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Ron Jeffries wrote:

> This was kind of where I was coming from with my question. I much prefer
> StudlyCaps and have used them for ages. It seemed that a lot of folks used the
> wimpy_underbar in their work. I want to use the language well, and part of that
> is in such details as that.
>
> But when AndyHimself said that he preferred StudlyCaps ... well, that did it for
> me. ;->

I kind of had the same reaction to what MatzHimself said about using
CamelCase for class and module names, CAPS for constants, and
underscore for everything else.  (No disrespect intended to Andy :-)

It sounds from this thread like the days of consensus and uniformity
of style, if ever there were such days, are probably over (in this
particular area), though for what it's worth I think a case can still
be made to have Ruby code follow what's done by Matz and in the
distribution (and even by Andy in his book :-)  On the other hand,
if there's this much (strong) disagreement, maybe it's best for
everyone to do what they want.  I don't mind reading weirdMethodNames
as long as I don't have to write them :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav