From: "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...>
Date: 2002-03-16T04:37:42+09:00
Subject: Re: camelCase and underscore_style

Phil Tomson wrote:
> 
> In article <99DD35F8BFC4D511A3C500508BEE03A23246DC@mail01>,
> Morris, Chris <chris.morris@snelling.com> wrote:
> >First, a question. If underscore_style is the Ruby norm for methods and the
> >like, what's the Ruby norm for class names? The few I perused were single
> >word classes (like String, Array), but all my classes seem to be two or
> >three words, so I CamelCaseThem. Is that Ruby typical?
> >
> >Ron:
> >> And why can't Ruby people use camel case? it is ten times
> >> easier to type
> >> x-shift-P than to type x_p. Or at least 50% easier :) But I digress...
> >
> >Pete:
> >> (umm ... lost the msg, but he said, to him,
> >underscore_style_was_easier_to_read)
> >
> >I agree with Ron on the typing point, and after giving the underscore style
> >a try, I think it is easier to read one thing with the underscore style, but
> >I find a whole block of code with lots of underscored names in it
> >distracting, because my eye is drawn to the underscores. Or is a code block
> >with lots of underscored names a code smell? :)
> >
> >I noticed code samples in the pickaxe book used camelCase. Dave/Andy, was
> >this an issue at all in writing the book?
> >
> >Chris
> >
> 
> Personally, I tend to use camelCase for variable and class names and
> underscore_style for method names but I don't think there is any consensus
> on this and it probably just indicates that I'm very confused ;-)
> 

Actually, there was a discussion about this last year somewhere and
it was concluded by those involved that underscore_style was for 
verbs (methods), and CamelCase was for nouns (like classes). 
This is not a requirement, of course, but seems consistent with what
I have come to expect, and is what I follow. 


Guy N. Hurst