On Thursday, 26 July 2012 at 13:47:42 UTC, David wrote:
> https://github.com/Dav1dde/glamour
>

Just did a wrapper myself for a project I'm working on. But I would be happy to join forces.

I have a couple of nitpickings though:

1, Why is the member method naming not using the standard camel case formatting as e.g. phobos does but uses underscore instead.

2, The gl3n library which glamour uses is pretty nice. It does use underscores as well but not consistently e.g. Quaternion.rotatey(). Additionally the type aliases (e.g. alias mat4) are lowercased which is not the standard and is also not how it is done in glamour (e.g  alias Texture3D).

How would you feel about changing the naming to the standard D conventions? I'll help you out if you think this ok.

/Jonas

> 1, Why is the member method naming not using the standard camel case
> formatting as e.g. phobos does but uses underscore instead.

This is my personal coding-style, heavily influenced by Pythons PEP-8. I am using it, because I personally don't like the camelCase, because I think it makes e.g. distinguishing members from types harder or reading the names and I also don't like the look of it.

> 2, The gl3n library which glamour uses is pretty nice. It does use
> underscores as well but not consistently e.g. Quaternion.rotatey().
> Additionally the type aliases (e.g. alias mat4) are lowercased which is
> not the standard and is also not how it is done in glamour (e.g  alias
> Texture3D).

`Quaternion.rotatey`, `Matrix.rotatey` – to be honest, I don't know why I named them like that (same with the static counterparts `y_rotation`). Maybe I should change it, but I don't think that's really bad or breaks the general coding style.

The aliases are lowercased to match `glsl`.

> How would you feel about changing the naming to the standard D
> conventions? I'll help you out if you think this ok.

Not a fan of that, this would break existing code and has no real benefits.

On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:21:58 UTC, David wrote:
> This is my personal coding-style, heavily influenced by Pythons PEP-8. I am using it, because I personally don't like the camelCase, because I think it makes e.g. distinguishing members from types harder or reading the names and I also don't like the look of it.

You are throwing consistency out of the window because of your own personal preference. You shouldn't be using the same style regardless of language and project.

>> How would you feel about changing the naming to the standard D
>> conventions? I'll help you out if you think this ok.
>
> Not a fan of that, this would break existing code and has no real benefits.

It's in your best interest to use the D style [1] if you want people to use your code.

[1] http://dlang.org/dstyle.html

On Saturday, 28 July 2012 at 21:21:58 UTC, David wrote:
>> 1, Why is the member method naming not using the standard camel case
>> formatting as e.g. phobos does but uses underscore instead.
>
> This is my personal coding-style, heavily influenced by Pythons PEP-8. I am using it, because I personally don't like the camelCase, because I think it makes e.g. distinguishing members from types harder or reading the names and I also don't like the look of it.

Fair enough.

I really do prefer to have a consistent style thoughout code bases I work with because it makes it much easier to reason about. Since phobos is the standard library that kind of dictates the styling for me :)

I've managed to find another project that does the same as Glamour and with the standard D style. I think I'll go with that one for now:

https://github.com/p0nce/gfm/tree/master/opengl

/Jonas

> I've managed to find another project that does the same as Glamour and
> with the standard D style. I think I'll go with that one for now:
>
> https://github.com/p0nce/gfm/tree/master/opengl

Do whatever you wanna do ;)