Why we don't use underbars

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 2011-05-06 09:51, Sune Foldager wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 09:48:09 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 09:46, Martin Geisler <mg at aragost.com> wrote:
>>> The coding style could go both ways: with or without underscores. If I
>>> have to remember the words anyway, then it's just a matter of doing
>>
>> Sure, but the coding style is what it is, changing it now would only
>> make things worse.
>>
>> Please stop bikeshedding now and just accept the way Mercurial has
>> been doing it for 6 years?
> 
> So what's the policy on this:
> 
> EXISTING_FLAG = 2
> NEWFLAG = 4
> 
> ?? ...or should consistency with EXISTING_FLAG win? What about when
> it's not existing_flag but EXISTING_RELATED_STUFF?
> 
> Unless ALL variables are changed (and rendered hard to read in most
> fonts in the process), this is not going to be less confusing.
> 
> Also, if you don't want to discuss it, why reply? It's not like it's
> illegal to talk about these things, is it?

I think it's a valid point to say: let's stick to what the project's
preferred policy about naming things in *this* code is and let's not
waste time on discussing why other styles might be better.

Style is just style and someone has to pick one. Matt has done so. If he
explains why he picked that particular style, we shouldn't take that as
an invitation to start discussing why -another- style might be better.

I think it's about keeping the project *focused* on the things that
really matter.