[Cryptography Team] Removing underscores

[Ron Teitelbaum]

I agree.  The names of the classes do come directly from the protocol, but
their value is arguable.  I agree with Bill though that interfaces to DB's
is a good example of where underscores should be allowed.  I really don't
understand the argument for not allowing them, or the argument that they are
aesthetically displeasing.  They seem reasonable to me.

Given the potential problems for others to load the code absent a major
argument within the community to allow them, I think we should remove them.

Ron  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
> Hans-Martin Mosner
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:24 PM
> To: Cryptography Team Development List
> Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] Removing underscores
> 
> Ron Teitelbaum schrieb:
> > What's your opinion about removing them from our code?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> I'd say remove them underscores - at the moment they make more trouble
> than what they're worth.
> For names of classes and methods, we can use the CamelBack form.
> The main advantage of underscores is that they allow you to take names
> from existing APIs and use them as-is. This is especially valuable in
> generated code, but I don't think we need that here. Or do we?
> 
> Cheers,
> Hans-Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Cryptography mailing list
> Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography