On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Steve Fink wrote: > The naming of things is getting a bit messy. I'd like to propose a > convention that I use in my work. It's compatible with the last draft > of PDD 7 that I could find: > http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-internals%40perl.org/msg03422.html
I agree, we should definitly be sticking to a standard. I think, though, that putting the * in the typedefs for structs might be a little confusing; at least, on all the systems I've worked on that do this, I've been confused. But that might just be me. :-) My question is (again, I suppose): What about INTVAL, NUMVAL, STRING, and friends? I have the distinct impression that they were uppercased somewhat in veneration of our old perl5 frieds IV, SV, PV, NV, etc. I think they should adhere to the same standard as everything else... whatever that may be. After looking through PDD 7, I wonder: were we planning on doing any of this stuff? If so, maybe we should step back for a moment and do it. :-) If developers are expected to follow these guidelines (not that I've done any developing, but hey), then everyone should take the time to read this file (and probably the other PDDs), and maybe think about fixing up either the code to follow the PDD, or the PDD to follow the code. - D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
