Re: Naming convensions

Clay Loveless wrote:

On 8/3/05 11:23 AM Pacific Time, Joe Stump (joe@joestump.net) wrote:

I would concur with the others that variables *should* be humpBack since functions are and, from what I can tell, it appears to be a defacto standard of sorts.

I think we need something better than a "de facto standard of sorts" ... It's either in the Coding Standards, or it's not, period. There's nothing in the documentation that discusses variable naming conventions, only function/method names. Personally, I don't make the leap that just because functions are namedLikeThis that variables should be also. In fact, as I said last week, I feel exactly the opposite -- and until the day that the Coding Standards are updated to specifically address variable names, I will not consider my choice to name_variables_like_this to be incorrect, invalid, or not recommended.

I have to agree here. I severely tend towards underscores, while I have noticed alot of other developers tending towards using lower bumby camel. Finding a standard this late in the game is tricky, but we could come up with one. Either way I agree the key aspect is that a given package atleast does this consistently. regards, Lukas