From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9B7BC0A for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:48:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2FNmFwD000999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:48:17 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1HRzg3-0001ic-00; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:48:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:48:11 +0000 To: David Allsopp Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Style and organization of code Message-ID: <20070315234809.GA6544@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20070315224000.674E3BC82@yquem.inria.fr> <00ca01c76756$d8492870$6a7ba8c0@treble> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00ca01c76756$d8492870$6a7ba8c0@treble> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 45F9DB3F.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; unreadable:01 unreadable:01 notation:01 underscores:01 notation:01 underscores:01 amusing:01 mli:01 ocamlc:01 foo:01 foo:01 mli:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:08:28PM -0000, David Allsopp wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:25:37PM -0500, ian wrote: > > > Say I have a function called "solveHardProblem". > > > > Ack! studlyCaps is horrible and unreadable (I know - I'm currently > > involved in a project which uses them). Try "solve_hard_problem" > > instead. > Horrible and unreadable? We seem to be forgetting that camel notation versus > underscores is entirely a matter of taste... I have no problem reading camel > notation and find underscores ugly (not to mention harder to type than > caps). I've always found the argument "the standard library uses this > notation" to be a very weak argument typically coming from more senior > programmers who're clutching at straws to justify their opinions ;o) > > I'm glad that, most of the time, the only standard library functions I use > with underscores are {type}_of_{other type} or {to|from|of}_{type} so don't > happen too often. > > (amusing aside: I once worked for a company that mixed the two... giving > solve_Hard_Problem which was particularly tedious!!) noIReallyThingYouReWrongAboutThisOne. > > You don't need to create a separate .mli (in fact, you sometimes > > can't). > Eh? When does ocamlc -i Foo.ml > Foo.mli ever fail? I too always pair a .mli > file with a .ml file even if the signature is exactly the same. I meant for defining the type of just an inner module on its own. It's generally a good idea to define types of interfaces in .mli files. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat