> -Original Message-
> From: Smylers [mailto:smyl...@stripey.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:20 AM
> To: perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: Re: Underscores v Hyphens (Was: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32]
backtraces
> overhaul)
>
> Moritz Lenz writes:
&g
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:20 PDT:
I oppose this. Underscores and hyphens should remain distinct.
That would seem to be the most human-friendly approach.
I disagree. More human friendly is "if it looks different in any way then it is
different"
Darren Duncan wrote on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:18:20 PDT:
> Smylers wrote:
>> Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
>> 6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
>> identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in programs),
>> with
Smylers wrote:
Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in programs),
with programmers able to use either separator on a whim?
I oppose this.
That kind of consistency is not much better than inconsistency in terms of
usability, IMO. I'd much prefer a purely lexical convention that doesn't
rely on how you assign parts of speech or define a "single word" that has a
hyphen in it.
Given that we allow hyphens in identifiers, I'd personall
Am 24.08.2011 11:33, schrieb Carl Mäsak:
Damian (>>>), Moritz (>>), Smylers (>):
... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
the minus character for user-space code.
So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an i
Damian (>>>), Moritz (>>), Smylers (>):
>> > ... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
>>
>> ... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
>> the minus character for user-space code.
>
> So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an identifier zapeth_clunk itself
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:19, Smylers wrote:
>
>
> Could we have underscores and hyphens mean the same thing? That is, Perl
> 6 always interprets illo-figut and illo_figut as being the same
> identifier (both for its own identifiers and those minted in programs),
> with programmers able to use ei
Moritz Lenz writes:
> Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
>
> > ... why hidden_from_backtrace instead of hidden-from-backtrace?
>
> ... low-level things are spelled with underscores, while we reserve
> the minus character for user-space code.
So the idea is that if Perl 6 has an identif
> S19 uses hyphens for all of perl6's long-form command-line flags.
Command-line flags and methods are separate sets. Hyphens would be the
norm for flags.
> In S28, we find $*EXECUTABLE_NAME and %*META-ARGS listed
> within 10 lines of each other.
> S32-setting-library_IO.pod and S32-setting-libr
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:36:27PM +0200, Damian Conway wrote:
> And I'd like there to be a more consistent approach than that
> (though I don't really care what it actually is).
+1 to consistency.
Pm
> The current stance seems to be that low-level things are spelled with
> underscores, while we reserve the minus character for user-space code. Try
> grepping the specs for identifiers of built-ins that have a minus in it -- I
> didn't find any in a quick search.
I had a little more time to look
613-327-6928
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:rich...@rusrating.ru]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 06:28 AM
> To: perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
>
> If you're asking
:613-327-6928
- Original Message -
From: Richard Hainsworth [mailto:rich...@rusrating.ru]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 06:28 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
If you're asking for an explanation of the humour, then
perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
The c
: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 04:56 AM
To: perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: [perl6/specs] a7cfe0: [S32] backtraces overhaul
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
> It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
> hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the
Am 23.08.2011 10:56, schrieb Moritz Lenz:
And why is this entire message written in questions?
Is it? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Never mind?
Am 23.08.2011 10:46, schrieb Damian Conway:
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
The current stance seems to be that low-level things are spelled with
underscores, while we
It's a trivial point, but why hidden_from_backtrace instead of
hidden-from-backtrace? Especially given that the associated
method is is-hidden, not is_hidden?
Are we consistently using underscores for multi_word traits
and hyphens for multi-word methods? Wouldn't it be nice to
have a consistent an
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: https://github.com/perl6/specs
Commit: a7cfe02002f665c120cf4b735919779820194757
https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/a7cfe02002f665c120cf4b735919779820194757
Author: Moritz Lenz
Date: 2011-08-23 (Tue, 23 Aug 2011)
Changed paths:
M S32-s
20 matches
Mail list logo
