Hi --

"James F.  Hranicky" <jfh / cise.ufl.edu> writes:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:39:52 +0900
> Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk / infofiend.com> wrote:
> 
> > If people don't find my arguments convincing, and want to continue
> > using lowercase_with_underscores for both methods and variables,
> > that's fine with me.  I'll have to work a bit harder to understand
> > your code, but as long as you don't start using
> > CamelCaseWithLeadingCaps for variables, classes, methods and
> > constants then I think I can figure things out.  But please, don't
> > force me to make my own personal code less legible for me.
> 
> It seems a lot of people find Ruby so much closer to perfect than
> any other language they've run across that they tend to think "If
> only Ruby did such-and-such it *would* be perfect" , and then rush
> out to create an RCR.  I've done it myself :->

Or rush out to introduce non-traditional variable and/or method names
:-) Actually this is an unusual case because the potential RCR is
actually aimed at preserving a characteristic of Ruby (not a language
feature per se, but a widely agreed-upon practice), rather than
changing something.

As I said in another message, I'm not actually in favor of forbidding
camelCase at the language level, but I do agree that change should be
conservative -- i.e., that Simon's idea is right in spirit.  I've
always found Ruby very clear (including code written by Matz and
others who use the traditional style of naming).  I think that's
actually one of the big draws of Ruby, not a problem awaiting a
solution.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net