D2010: check-commit: allow foo_bar naming in functions
martinvonz (Martin von Zweigbergk)
phabricator at mercurial-scm.org
Fri Mar 15 11:24:16 EDT 2019
martinvonz added a comment.
In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2010#89337, @indygreg wrote:
> Should we queue this patch or abandon it?
I'm for it, even though it leads to inconsistency. However, we may want to discuss ahead of time what our long-term plan for existing symbols is. Do we eventually want to remove that inconsistency? I took a quick look for examples where it seemed obviously not worth it to rename and it was harder to find good examples than I had expected. Perhaps `bail_if_changed` and `extensions.wrap_function` are some of the more frequently used. But most very commonly used functions seem to have short names already. So maybe even if we wanted to eventually make it consistent, it won't be as bad as people have feared? I still don't feel very strongly, but I wanted to highlight what it would mean in practice.
To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers, pulkit, durin42
Cc: martinvonz, av6, yuja, durin42, pulkit, mercurial-devel
More information about the Mercurial-devel