On 3/12/2010 9:44 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
> 2010/3/13 Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>> On 3/12/2010 9:22 PM, Ian Trudel wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the manner you have presented this. Concise information. There
>>> is a question that seems to be not addressed (or not as clear as I'd
>>> like) in your email. What happen if one switches from one preference
>>> to another after having extensively used it? Is there some kind of
>>> conversion taking place?
>>
>> No. If you switch the interpretation of underscores mid-way, you deserve
>> swift punishment and you shall receive it :-) This is supposed to be a
>> pretty static default and like I was saying I'd be in favor of disallowing
>> underscores altogether for baseline development. In which case you'd turn on
>> one or the other in situations where you may need it, for example when
>> porting code using underscore assignment, or when loading a library that
>> comes from a system using underscores.
>
> All right. I believe it is not as much appealing as it would have been

Agreed. It would definitely be nicer with conversion. But I don't have 
the time to do that and the proposed version addresses my concerns 
because there's a simple story to tell people how to load stuff with 
underscores: turn on the preference, load it, turn it back off, run 
FixUnderscores.

> with the conversion. I'm also wondering what kind of implications it
> could have on the trunk. Won't it give additional worries (burden) if
> people don't stick to a certain standard? To my understanding, it
> could become a melting pot and it's not like recompiling will never
> occur in the trunk. Swift punishment, you said... :)

Yes, it could cause problems, like any feature that's abused :-) Thus my 
preference for disallowing underscores altogether.

Cheers,
   - Andreas