Naming conventions #79
Conversation
…cn-tutorial into naming_conventions
|
Thanks, everybody, for all the discussion. I think we are close to convergence on the basics of the new naming scheme -- I think the only remaining major (well, "major") thing is whether the "type annotation part" of an identifier comes first or last: I prefer last (so you don't have to read past it to find the interesting part of the identifier); Cole prefers first (because some C code uses this convention). Anybody else want to weigh in? There are also several discussions above that go beyond identifier naming conventions and get into naming of keywords and other aspects of the language. I propose we move these either to separate discussions on GitHub or else into comments in tutorial.adoc. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! As @bcpierce00 pointed out, not every issue is fully resolved, but this looks to be in a largely consistent state and a big step forward.
|
It's probably actually the naming-conventions-2 branch that should be (PR'd and) merged, not this one. I've continued tidying there, plus moved some of the github discussion into comments. We should also make sure that the unresolved comments above are reflected in github issues somewhere. |
|
(There's still some work to do in naming-conventions-2 too, but I'm happy to continue working on it after a merge. As Cole says, it's not 100% internally consistent, but it's close, and it's a big improvement on what's in the main branch now, IMO.) |
|
OK, I am nearly finished with a new round of changes, which I will submit as a separate PR. I think all the discussions here have stabilized and/or been moved elsewhere, so I am going to close this PR. |
No description provided.