Tim Rowledge wrote:

>I strongly support the board position on this. Underscores in method
>names and variable names are an abomination against the Ghods. We are
>the Knights of the Square Bracket and we
>Do_Not_Use_Underscores_In_Method_Names. Aside from any other
>considerations, why would we want to make our code even faintly look
>like j-j-j-whotsit?
>
>Sir tim the underscore slayer
>
>  
>

OK.  I also agree it is aesthetically displeasing.

Some months ago, I did a quick-and-dirty GLORP version 0.2.5 port.  Now 
I'm wanting to update it to the current 0.2.12, and this time I want it 
to be a bit better than "quick-and-dirty", so that it can more easily 
track the evolution of GLORP as it occurs.

However, GLORP uses a bunch of underscores in the method names, which 
makes it a bit more difficult to come up with a quality approach that 
will allow the Squeak port to easily track the GLORP evolution.

Maybe I'll have to think about it some more.

Nevin