Re: relaxing studlyCaps requirement?

Quoting Peter Bowyer <reywob@f2s.com>: > I agree. Why was it chosen in the first place? I personally find that > words separated with _ are easier to read, even if more typing is involved. It was chosen because after a long, ugly, completely unproductive "discussion" on the mailing list, we decided to go with it. We can rehash that debate if people really want to, but I'd rather not. As far as I'm concerned, what's up for discussion is: convention, or no convention. We picked studlyCaps a while ago; if we stick with a convention, let's stick with it (and not break the DB api - among others - _again_. some of us use that code in production...). Personally, I think it's necessary to have a convention. But I've made those points already. -chuck -- Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org> Some fallen angels have their good reasons.