Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> Ruby does already enforce CamelCase for class/modules.
> 
> 'camelCase' for variables/methods is easy to confuse with
> ClassNames. Its hard to distinguish for newcomers if they 
> should use 'under_score' syntax or 'camelCase' syntax. If 
> the person has a Java background it may be natual though
> (but being friendly to Java persons may hurt Ruby).
> 
> However I don't use 'camelCase' and I tend to _avoid_
> libraries which uses forces me to it. Luckily many of them
> provide underscore aliases.
> 
> In Ruby2 it would be nice to get rid of 'camelCase', so
> that 'under_score' naming is enforced by the language.
> 
> Should I submit an RCR about this ?
> Resistance ?  any good reasons to use camelCase ?
> 
> --
> Simon Strandgaard

I would probably prefer most library code to have similar conventions, 
but I generally chafe against restrictions which seem reasonably 
arbitrary like this one.  It's one of my chief reasons I never learned 
python that they had arbitrary rules like this.

	Charles Comstock