IDL language

[Colin Walters]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Simon McVittie
<simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 at 12:45:50 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 17:32 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > If you're doing anything like this, please consider naming types and other new
>> > constructs using Ugly_Case (camel case with underscores at word boundaries),
>> > like Telepathy does.
>>
>> Not sure exactly what you want me to do. It sounds more like this is
>> stuff that should go into a "IDL programming guide" as how people should
>> name their methods/properties/signals, no? I mean, binding generators
>> are free to do whatever they want.
>
> My point is that if the definition of the IDL says that things are named
> using Ugly_Case, then transforming the IDL into the case conventions used by
> any language I can think of becomes trivial, whereas if the IDL uses a different
> case convention, mapping into other case conventions requires tricky heuristics
> which are unlikely to be right every time.

This is a good point, one that clearly comes from a lot of practical
experience.   One thing we might consider as an option is defaulting
say PascalCase (as is used currently for DBus names), but for
ambiguous cases, requiring Ugly_Case.  The definition of "ambiguous"
would be when there are two uppercase letters in a row.