On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 06:06 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > [...] > I meant that all-caps was appropriate for CPP macros because of the > grievous syntactic breakage, such as unbalancing grouping token pairs, > and worse. > [...]
Hello, yes, that's certainly less of an issue in a world of hygienic macros, like Scheme, or in a world without macros at all, like Java. > [...] > Although "final"-hinted compiler optimizations can be dangerous for > people who use "final" yet neither version their libraries nor compile > their code when appropriate, I wasn't aware of an all-caps naming > convention for "final". > > If I understand correctly, you're saying that it's a happy accident that > Java originally bastardized a convention from C, since *some* things > that are all-caps for the wrong reason are coincidentally dangerous > because of "final", although not all dangerous "final" things are in > all-caps, so the happy accident only gets us so far? :) > [...] That's kind of what I meant, yes :-) In particular giving the host of public static final int interface members all-caps identifiers is not such a bad idea. Ciao, Thomas -- When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
