Re: Define consistent and standard

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 10:37:02AM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
> Michael Fowler sent the following bits through the ether:
> 
> > Personally, I think FindBin is a bit of a sore thumb.  Its name, the
> > capitalization of its variable names
> 
> I suppose we could try and define some Perl Naming Conventions - ie
> instead of DumpCore() we should have dump_core(). This'll really annoy
> Java programmers. Other ideas needed though...

I think no matter what is decided, consistency-wise, someone is going to be
unhappy with it.  If we use DumpCore() the C programmers won't like us,
dump_core() and the C++ and Java programmers will throw fits.  I think the
best thing we can do is decide on what -Perl- programmers want. 
Unfortunately, this is rather difficult to pin down, but we should probably
take hints from the language itself.

I'm going to wait until Gisle Aas puts out his RFC, and bat it around at
that point.  That way we have a list of what needs to be made consistent
(methods look like this, variables that do this look like that, etc.) and
what needs to be made consistent (this module isn't consistent, fix it)
[intentional redundancy there].


Michael
--
Administrator                      www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator   www.gallanttech.com
--