On the other hand I can definitely see the appeal of it (some python packages go against the recommendation and sort-of taint the style of other sources).
This so far was the only "weird" comment I could think of.
On the other hand I can definitely see the appeal of it (some python packages go against the recommendation and sort-of taint the style of other sources).
This so far was the only "weird" comment I could think of.
(I'd worry about ambiguities of the experts exchange / expert sex change type, too, but my guess is that they're extremely rare and usually either harmless or instantly caught by the compiler. Still, the mere possibility makes me twitchy.)
- You cannot have two underscores in a row
- You cannot have a leading underscore
It can be used for good too, for example if you have a bunch of different naming conventions in the libraries you use:
proc some_lib_function(x: int) = echo "hi ", x
proc anotherLibFunction(x: int) = echo "hi ", x
proc crAzY_LIB_WRITERS(x: int) = echo "hi ", x
Then you can still call them consistently: someLibFunction(10)
anotherLibFunction(11)
crazyLibWriters(12)Either way, I still find the idea a bit weird. If the language wants to be opinionated about naming, maybe it could simply make _ illegal in an identifier or, to push it one level further, refuse to compile any identifier that is not camelCase.
(But I'm not much of an IDE-user myself. Perhaps modern IDEs have enough hooks that you really can control this stuff?)
While this seems problematic they added some neat features to avoid problems with `uniqueness` of the name and so on.
One thing I wish at this point is to force the compiler to stop if this pattern is not uniform within a codebase.