Tim Sutherland wrote:
> In article <pan.2004.03.24.04.02.22.303009 / adslhome.dk>, 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 ?
> 
> 
> There are libraries which provide a bridge between Ruby and e.g. Java, .NET
> and Python. For example, you can have Ruby call a Java method. If the Java
> method is called `someJavaMethod' then you will want your Ruby code to say
> `foo.someJavaMethod(123)`.

there's also a .NET bridge, the .net libraries capitalize their method 
names... should we allow foo.SomeDotNetMethod(123)? this is not an 
argument either way, just a question.

-- 
dc -e 
4dd*od3*dddn1-89danrn10-dan3+ann6*dan*2*an13dn1+dn2-dn3+5*ddan2/9+an13nap