From: Michael Neumann <mneumann@...>
Date: 2004-10-21T19:01:06+09:00
Subject: Re: CamelCase issues

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 06:34:20PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
> "Michael Neumann" <mneumann@ntecs.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:20041021091218.GC983@miya.intranet.ntecs.de...
> > Hi,
> >
> > For method names that contain up to two words, I really prefer the
> > underscore-case (e.g., has_key?, method_missing). But if the method name
> > contains more than two words that starts to look ugly IMO. It even looks
> > strange (IMO) if you use underscore-case very often in your program
> > (everything is small, no contrast for your eyes):
> >
> >   c.form.url("foo").with {
> >     c.table {
> >       c.table_row.id("myrow").with {
> >         c.table_data.align_top.col_span(3).with("Hello world")
> >       }
> >       c.table_row_with_data {
> >         c << "Foo:"
> >         c.text_input.value(myobject.foo).callback(myobject, :foo=)
> >       }
> >     }
> >   }
> >
> > Versus:
> >
> >   c.form.url("foo").with {
> >     c.table {
> >       c.tableRow.id("myrow").with {
> >         c.tableData.alignTop.colSpan(3).with("Hello world")
> >       }
> >       c.tableRowWithData {
> >         c << "Foo:"
> >         c.textInput.value(myobject.foo).callback(myobject, :foo=)
> >       }
> >     }
> >   }
> >
> > (and if you know that there's a class TableData, shouldn't the method be
> > named tableData instead of table_data ?)
> >
> > I know that underscore-case is the perfered way in Ruby.
> >
> > Some more examples:
> >
> >   render_content_on <-> renderContentOn
> >   render_table_header_on <-> renderTableHeaderOn
> >
> > Which one would you prefer? Thanks.
> 
> I'd stick with underscore style.  IMHO readability is not really improved
> with camel case (might depend on screen, font and coloring though) and the
> only advantage is that you save some chars.

I usually agree. Hmm strange, now the example with underscores starts to
look better ;-)

> It might be different for you but I have to use more than three
> identifiers separated by a dot very rarely; so from my personal experience
> the example you showed seems to be rather exceptional than regular - YMMV
> though.  I don't know the classes of your example so I don't know whether
> these chains *have* to be there because all invocations create new
> instance.  If not, i.e., if some of those methods just return self, I'd
> rather resort to multiple lines with individual invocations.

No, these chains are not exceptional! And yes, they return self most of
the time. It's a port of Seaside2's new Html rendering scheme. 

> My 0.02EUR...

Thanks.

Regards,

  Michael