[gmx-developers] no delimiters in file names from 5.0?

[Szilárd Páll]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Mark Abraham <mark.j.abraham at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Erik Lindahl <erik.lindahl at scilifelab.se>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2013, at 22:08, Mark Abraham <mark.j.abraham at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Some new C files in (say) fileio and timing modules have underscores.
>> > The new C++ files tend to be named according to a major class that they
>> > implement, which are also not named with delimiters. Not needing to
>> > interrupt keyboard flow with shift-minus is a small advantage, but I would
>> > prefer readability over that! Different people's brains work differently,
>> > too!
>>
>> Wasn’t the plan to convert to camelCase?
>
>
> For identifiers, sure, and that has happened for the new C++ files I've
> seen. It sure never occurred to me that we might want a/that convention for
> filenames. Unsurprisingly, we've left Teemu to his own devices for so long
> he's suited himself ;-)
>
>> Part of that was to make it clear what things had been translated into C++
>> while the move is in progress, but another small advantage over the
>> underscores is that it is easy to add _lots_ of delimiters in long names
>> without extending the length of the identifier, instead of coming up with
>> nonstandard abbreviations that are hard for other developers to decipher.
>
>
> Yeah, transition-marking is useful. Camel case is not perfect either,
> because now you have to wonder where to capitalise stuff like
> PPPMELoadBalancing...

Yeah, I find that quite annoying and because of this I can't even
argue that we should write a script and change back everything to
underscores because p_p_p_m_e_load_balancing is not much better. :)


>
>> I would also hate to have different standards for short vs. long
>> identifiers, with each developer deciding when an underscore might look good
>> to have, or when a name short enough to do without it. With gmxCamelCase we
>> would always write gmxAssert.cpp too?
>
>
> Happy to do that, but it's not a high priority.
>
> Mark
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Erik
>> --
>> Gromacs Developers mailing list
>>
>> * Please search the archive at
>> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List before
>> posting!
>>
>> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>>
>> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
>> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers or
>> send a mail to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
>
>
>
> --
> Gromacs Developers mailing list
>
> * Please search the archive at
> http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists/GMX-developers_List before
> posting!
>
> * Can't post? Read http://www.gromacs.org/Support/Mailing_Lists
>
> * For (un)subscribe requests visit
> https://maillist.sys.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/gromacs.org_gmx-developers or
> send a mail to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.