<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Michiel van Baak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michiel@vanbaak.info">michiel@vanbaak.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On 21:07, Mon 10 Nov 08, Trevor Peirce wrote:<br>
> John Todd wrote:<br>
> > These symbols seem fine, but in the long view it is perhaps the case<br>
> > that the "_" character was incorrect as the leading indicator for<br>
> > forward inheritance. It seems, logically, that "+" and "++" should<br>
> > represent forward and infinite forward inheritance, and "-" and "--"<br>
> > should indicate reverse and infinite reverse inheritance. We may be<br>
> > too far out of the gate for this type of serious change (or shift) to<br>
> > be practical, and there may be other syntactical/parsing reasons why<br>
> > what I think is reasonable is not a practical nomenclature.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> I would strongly advise against this as it starts to resemble math too<br>
> much and could misleading. As an alternative I suggest appending _ to<br>
> the variable name in contrast to prepending.<br>
><br>
> Forward inheritance: _variable or __variable<br>
> Reverse inheritance: variable_ or variable__<br>
><br>
> A memory technique that can be associated with this is if the variable<br>
> name is after the _ mark, it will go to channels created after. If the<br>
> variable name is before the _ mark, it will go to the channels created<br>
> before.<br>
<br>
</div>Good one. I really like this over the +<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote></div>As many people use the syntax of foo_bar_baz to name variables this could lead to some serious unintended consequences. There's been many a time that I've seen an unintended _ at the end of a variable name (much more frequently than at the beginning, but that still suffers the same issue.)<br>
<br>Just a thought, not really a vote either way.<br>