Why we don't use underbars

Sune Foldager cryo at cyanite.org
Fri May 6 03:33:54 CDT 2011


On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:29:46 +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>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.

Well, I still find this case somewhat unresolved:

>> 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?

Sune


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list