Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from August 2011
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 identifier zapeth_clunk itself that >> leaves zapeth-clunk free to be used by developers to mean something >> else? > > Not much of a problem in Perl 6 in the first place; built-ins from the > setting are considered to be lexical declarations from a block outside > of the mainline program code, and any declarations made by the > developer will just shadow these. > > No, my understanding is that the naming convention is there to > separate stuff API stuff from internals stuff: > > dashes > this is part of the Perl 6 API -- feel free to call it > underscores > this is an internal function -- unless you're doing something > internal yourself, you shouldn't call it > > To me, it has a nice visual mnemonic, since underscores themselves are > more "low-level". That's how I understood it too, but wasn't able to phrase it so nicely. > Of course, it remains to be seen whether this convention is (a) > useful, (b) correctly guessing the boundaries between API and > low-level, or even (c) consistently applied within the spec. (c) is false, I'm quite sure. I'm all for cleaning it up, once we agree on a naming scheme > Damian (>>>), Patrick (>>), Smylers (>): >>>> I'd like there to be a more consistent approach than that >>> >>> +1 to consistency. >> >> 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? >> >> That would seem to be the most human-friendly approach. It's not machine friendly. It means you can't easily dispatch methods by looking them up in hash, you first have to name-mangle. And consider how often you call methods in Perl 6 (like, all the time), that wouldn't be nice at all. > Maybe, but in my humble opinion that wouldn't promote consistency in > user code. Also, the name mangling needed to do this would waterbed up > *somewhere* and likely cause new, interesting kinds of pain. Like interoperation with other languages. What if you call methods from a language that doesn't have this name mangling rule (like, all of them)? Suddenly you must be careful where you didn't have to be careful before. So a best practice would evolve that you always be careful in the first place, and the whole idea is being frowned upon. Let's take a shortcut, frown upon the idea right now, and don't spec it :-) Cheers, MoritzThread Previous | Thread Next