Matthew,

Why the functions and methods name starting with a capital letter? check the D style guide at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html

Walter,

How did you allow that!?

let me check the other contribution from Matthew...

oh, no, registry.d has the same problem...

Ant

"Ant" <duitoolkit@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:pan.2004.01.03.05.28.35.516326@yahoo.ca...
> Matthew,
>
> Why the functions and methods name starting with a capital letter? check the D style guide at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html
>
> Walter,
>
> How did you allow that!?
>
> let me check the other contribution from Matthew...
>
> oh, no, registry.d has the same problem...
>
> Ant


I agree.. Matthew makes good libraries but I don't like his coding style much.

Ant wrote:
> Matthew,
> 
> Why the functions and methods name starting with a capital letter?
> check the D style guide at
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html
> 
> Walter,
> 
> How did you allow that!?
> 
> let me check the other contribution from Matthew...
> 
> oh, no, registry.d has the same problem...
> 
> Ant
> 

also note in overview it says:

 D is not a scripting language, nor an interpreted language. It doesn't come with a VM, <b> a religion , or an overriding philosophy. It's a practical language for practical programmers </b> who need to get the job done quickly, reliably, and leave behind maintainable, easy to understand code.

personally i like the his coding style. but im also biased towards anything that looks more BASIC than C  ;)

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:00:56 -0500, Lewis wrote:

> Ant wrote:
>> Matthew,
>> 
>> Why the functions and methods name starting with a capital letter? check the D style guide at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html
>> 
>> Walter,
>> 
>> How did you allow that!?
>> 
>> let me check the other contribution from Matthew...
>> 
>> oh, no, registry.d has the same problem...
>> 
>> Ant
>> 
> 
> also note in overview it says:
> 
>   D is not a scripting language, nor an interpreted language. It doesn't come
> with a VM, <b> a religion , or an overriding philosophy. It's a practical
> language for practical programmers </b> who need to get the job done quickly,
> reliably, and leave behind maintainable, easy to understand code.
> 
> personally i like the his coding style. but im also biased towards anything that looks more BASIC than C  ;)

give me a break.
at least the 'official' digital mars D runtime library could follow
the suggested style.

Ant

Oh, so many possible answers to this question, some penitent, some exasperated, some disinterested, some patient. I shall content myself with :

I have lots of different styles, depending on the context. It's conceivable that my D style will evolve to fall in with the "official style", I suppose, but there again it may not.

I think it's a little too early in the game to be prioritising this to the degree that Walter and I, or anyone else, would spend time that is in such short supply on it, when there are other issues that are more pressing. I for one am more than prepared for all my D libraries to have to change conventions, and my D client code to break, before 1.0 comes around. What's of far more concern, surely, is that there are a raft of libraries yet to be written, and Walter wants to release 1.0 in March! (A little recursive search and replace is not going to be too taxing, is it, especially since we now have a recursive search library ...)

Unless and until the picture clears around the different paradigms that will lead D forward, in much the same way that STL, C-API and OO paradigms all have different styles in C++, I'm going to maintain my position of preparedness. We may all be changing ...



> Matthew,
>
> Why the functions and methods name starting with a capital letter? check the D style guide at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/dstyle.html
>
> Walter,
>
> How did you allow that!?
>
> let me check the other contribution from Matthew...
>
> oh, no, registry.d has the same problem...
>
> Ant
>

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:32:52 +1100, Matthew wrote:

> Oh, so many possible answers to this question, some penitent, some exasperated, some disinterested, some patient. I shall content myself with :

You can argue however you like, but you're still wrong. :)

Ant

Matthew wrote:
> I have lots of different styles, depending on the context. It's conceivable
> that my D style will evolve to fall in with the "official style", I suppose,
> but there again it may not.

BTW, why do you define "alias int boolean"? I think this is a big mistake. What makes it in your opinion better than "alias bit bool"?

-eye

"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:bt9kcn$1rml$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> > I have lots of different styles, depending on the context. It's
conceivable
> > that my D style will evolve to fall in with the "official style", I
suppose,
> > but there again it may not.
>
> BTW, why do you define "alias int boolean"? I think this is a big mistake. What makes it in your opinion better than "alias bit bool"?

why is everyone getting hung up on all this crap? I don't think boolean is better than bool, but when I wrote the reg api the issue of bool was still way up in the air, so I chose to avoid possible clashes at that time. I do think int is better than bit, until such time as we have a strongly typed boolean. But, AFAIK, the issue was never resolved, and no concensus was reached, so I just continued in my holding pattern.

As I mentioned in the other post, I'm ready for wholesale syntactic changes to all of my D code (lib and client) prior to 1.0, but I'm not going to spend serious amounts of time - of which I have very little atm - on things that are still subject to change.  recls has simply followed the reg api, since it seems to me to be sensible that I, as their author, be consistent so that when I have to make these changes it is simple to do.

I'd be interested to hear any feedback - -ve or +ve - on the semantics of the libs.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bta0ik$2des$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'd be interested to hear any feedback - -ve or +ve - on the semantics of the libs.

Should think about upgrading it from the "A" api's to the "W" api's.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bta4uc$2jo2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bta0ik$2des$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I'd be interested to hear any feedback - -ve or +ve - on the semantics
of
> > the libs.
>
> Should think about upgrading it from the "A" api's to the "W" api's.

So it will not work on Win9x?

Or has a D-standard mechanism been established for dynamically determining which APIs to use, depending on the current OS? If so, I missed it.

(FTR, I am not of the opinion that its current form is *the* form, merely that AFAIK the issue is yet to be resolved.)