consistent underscore naming policy

[StefanKarpinski]

This is kind of a blanket issue that intersects with API cleanup and naming consistency, but we need to figure our shit out regarding when to underscore and when not to underscore. One possibly controversial proposal (that I'm not really sure I favor), would be using underscores consistently, which turns especially predicates like isempty into the much more annoying is_empty, but which would be addressed by adding support for names that end in ? and writing empty? instead. Another proposal would be that names in base, as the basic "grammar" of Julia don't use underscores whereas things in packages and user code use underscores. Or we just go fully Germanic and don't use underscores ever. Or we can just keep on being completely inconsistent.

[johnmyleswhite]

I actually like having underscores everywhere, but also think that ? would be a great idea.

While we're on the topic of consistency in names, did we ever standardize on push! and similar examples?

[StefanKarpinski]

No, but I think we should. I'll make an issue for that.

[StefanKarpinski]

Oh, wait, we already have one: #907.

[staticfloat]

I'm ambivalent on underscores; I have no great love or hate of them, I could go either way.

For the question-mark syntax, since we need parens to call a function, are you suggesting the following:

if empty?( a )
  println( "a is empty!" )
end

[StefanKarpinski]

Yeah, that's the idea. It would make empty? a valid identifier for all purposes, but the convention would be only to use it for functions that are predicates. Not entirely sold on the idea, but it's a possibility.

[JeffBezanson]

I'd rather not, since we already allow the syntax a?1:0. I would also personally find is_empty very annoying, as would matlab users. I believe there would be too many other functions affected as well. Would we say flip_lr, cum_sum, fft_shift, etc.? Being 100% consistent here is not realistic IMO.

[johnmyleswhite]

I agree that isempty and cumsum aren't bad, although I think flip_lr and fft_shift are actually much better.

Maybe there's an intermediate compromise where there's an accepted set of prefixes in the way that ! is a suffix? in and cum seem like legitimate prefixes to me, while fft doesn't.

[JeffBezanson]

I like the idea of standard prefixes, so you can predict whether there is an underscore. The only wrinkle is that it's confounded by established names like strerror, getenv, and in the case of matlab fftshift.

[jacg]

I would like to register my support for allowing '?' as a constituent character of identifiers. Someone else suggested that we be obliged to separate any preceding name from the '?' in the ternary operator. Unlike the proposer, I'm not convinced that this is, in and of itself, a good thing to impose, but I do think it is a price worth paying for the ability to name predicates with a trailing '?'.

[StefanKarpinski]

Another fact that pushes me in favor of using trailing ? for predicates: we are currently pretty inconsistent about the is prefix, probably because it's linguistically awkward a lot of the time. For example, contains is a predicate, but doesn't begin with is; we could write iscontained, but that would be super awkward, imo. The same goes for has which is also a predicate. The list goes on. First off, contains and has should probably be merged into in, but then that still doesn't have an is prefix. I guess we could do iselem, but that's pretty awkward too. I'd rather call it in? or elem?

[johnmyleswhite]

Since we're invoking intuitions from natural language, it's pretty clear that English predominantly makes questions by using tone at the end of sentences, which is what the ? gets at it. That makes its use natural for an English speaker, whereas the is_ prefix (which I nevertheless like) is going to fail in every case where the English sentence would contain "does" instead of "is".

Another perspective is that predicates derived from adjectives will work with is, but predicates from verbs need does. Stefan's contains example is one case of this problem.

[JeffBezanson]

I don't think it's necessary for every boolean function to be named consistently.

[sth4nth]

why not camel. Functions begin with lowercase letters, types begin with upper case letters. isEmpty vs Matrix. Underscore can produce reeeeealy long names. I dont want to name my linear regression with automatic relenvance determination prior using empirical bayesian fitted by EM function as lin_reg_ard_eb_em()

[diegozea]

Exclamation mark ! when you are going to modify the data and ? for function asking things, looks too easy of understand and use. Even for Spanish speakers like me. In Spanish. ( And I like the idea of something consistent, but can be awkward introduce some extra rule for ternary operator )

In Spanish, we grammatically use two sings, one for open ( ¿ ¡ ) and one for close ( ! ? ). But English it's so popular and using a trailing sign is more faster and comfortable, we use to use the English notation in the colloquial writing now.
Have a prefix instead of a suffix have a clear usability went you are using tab for auto-completion or if you forget the function name (but you know is a kind of question to data) [ it's common to me, because I'm used to switch between programming languages and because English it's not natural for my ] [ for ! is good at the end, because some function can have a version with and without the ! ]

Using ¿ ¡ symbols in beginning it's not going to collide with nothing... But can be awkward to native English speakers?

fill!()
empty?()

?empty()

¿empty()

The last looks to good to my, because I'm a Spanish speaker. But I'm comfortable whit the two first.

P.S.: I'm think that dequeue functions need to be consistent with the ! rules
[ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=es&fromgroups=#!topic/julia-dev/wKIlMaSj0YE ]

[johnmyleswhite]

As you said, opening ¿ ¡ are clearly on their way out of the layperson's Spanish language. So I don't think adding them would help Julia.

I do agree that we should strive for greater consistency in naming functions that modify their inputs.

I would like to add ?, but that interferes with the ternary operator.

-- John

On Jan 6, 2013, at 5:23 PM, diegozea notifications@github.com wrote:

Exclamation mark ! when you are going to modify the data and ? for function asking things, looks too easy of understand and use. Even for Spanish speakers like me. In Spanish. ( And I like the idea of something consistent, but can be awkward introduce some extra rule for ternary operator )

In Spanish, we grammatically use two sings, one for open ( ¿ ¡ ) and one for close ( ! ? ). But English it's so popular and using a trailing sign is more faster and comfortable, we use to use the English notation in the colloquial writing now.
Have a prefix instead of a suffix have a clear usability went you are using tab for auto-completion or if you forget the function name (but you know is a kind of question to data) [ it's common to me, because I'm used to switch between programming languages and because English it's not natural for my ] [ for ! is good at the end, because some function can have a version with and without the ! ]

Using ¿ ¡ symbols in beginning it's not going to collide with nothing... But can be awkward to native English speakers?

fill!()
empty?()

?empty()

¿empty()
The last looks to good to my, because I'm a Spanish speaker. But I'm comfortable whit the two first.

P.S.: I'm think that dequeue functions need to be consistent with the ! rules
[ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=es&fromgroups=#!topic/julia-dev/wKIlMaSj0YE ]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.