Smalltalk › Frameworks & Tools › SciSmalltalk

Naming and comments guideline for PolyMath

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

4 messages Options

Alexey Cherkaev

Naming and comments guideline for PolyMath

Hi all,

Is there a guideline for naming classes (especially) and methods (a bit less so)? And what comments should look like (including or excluding copyright)?

There are a few cases when this is not so trivial to resolve:

Creating new classes: most of the classes so far are from Didier Besset and prefixed with 'Dhb'. I've been following the same convention so far, but it would look rather arbitrary in the future if PolyMath classes have this prefix. Should we stick with one prefix 'PM', 'Pm' or 'Poly' or even 'PolyMath' (a bit tool long though)? Or to modularise, to have a family of prefixes?
Re-factoring or otherwise changing existing classes or methods with Didier's comment that includes copyright information. The simplest way probably would be to add extra line of copyright by whoever introduces the change. But then there are methods and classes without comments or comments that do not include copyright. It just feels like there should be some uniformity.

Cheers, Alexey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

SergeStinckwich

Re: Naming and comments guideline for PolyMath

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Alexey Cherkaev
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Is there a guideline for naming classes (especially) and methods (a bit less
> so)? And what comments should look like (including or excluding copyright)?
>
> There are a few cases when this is not so trivial to resolve:
>
> Creating new classes: most of the classes so far are from Didier Besset and
> prefixed with 'Dhb'. I've been following the same convention so far, but it
> would look rather arbitrary in the future if PolyMath classes have this
> prefix. Should we stick with one prefix 'PM', 'Pm' or 'Poly' or even
> 'PolyMath' (a bit tool long though)? Or to modularise, to have a family of
> prefixes?

We decide to prefix everything with PM.

> Re-factoring or otherwise changing existing classes or methods with Didier's
> comment that includes copyright information. The simplest way probably would
> be to add extra line of copyright by whoever introduces the change. But then
> there are methods and classes without comments or comments that do not
> include copyright. It just feels like there should be some uniformity.

This is not necessary to duplicate copyright information everywhere.
Stéphane is currently cleaning methods.

Regards,
--
Serge Stinckwich
UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC)
Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk
http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

stepharo

Re: Naming and comments guideline for PolyMath

In reply to this post by Alexey Cherkaev

Le 29/3/16 11:25, Alexey Cherkaev a écrit :

Hi all,

Is there a guideline for naming classes (especially) and methods (a bit less so)? And what comments should look like (including or excluding copyright)?

- No copyright in method! I'm removing them all because they got on my nerves :)
- We will use the prefix PM

There are a few cases when this is not so trivial to resolve:

Creating new classes: most of the classes so far are from Didier Besset and prefixed with 'Dhb'. I've been following the same convention so far, but it would look rather arbitrary in the future if PolyMath classes have this prefix. Should we stick with one prefix 'PM', 'Pm' or 'Poly' or even 'PolyMath' (a bit tool long though)? Or to modularise, to have a family of prefixes?

We will rename all the classes slowly then the new version of the book :)

Re-factoring or otherwise changing existing classes or methods with Didier's comment that includes copyright information. The simplest way probably would be to add extra line of copyright by whoever introduces the change. But then there are methods and classes without comments or comments that do not include copyright. It just feels like there should be some uniformity.

We will remove all the copyright per method. This is the only library that has that over the thousands of packages published using Pharo.
We can put one copyright
Now I do not like the idea of copyright because each time I edit a line I should put my name and my copyright?
No I would hate it. So if this is really important then we put on line in the class comment.

Cheers, Alexey

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SciSmalltalk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Alexey Cherkaev

Re: Naming and comments guideline for PolyMath

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:21:33 PM UTC+2, stepharo wrote:

Le 29/3/16 11:25, Alexey Cherkaev a écrit :

Hi all,

Is there a guideline for naming classes (especially) and methods (a bit less so)? And what comments should look like (including or excluding copyright)?

- No copyright in method! I'm removing them all because they got on my nerves :)
- We will use the prefix PM

Cool!

We will remove all the copyright per method. This is the only library that has that over the thousands of packages published using Pharo.
We can put one copyright
Now I do not like the idea of copyright because each time I edit a line I should put my name and my copyright?
No I would hate it. So if this is really important then we put on line in the class comment.

Ok, I am not a fun of copyright info everywhere either, but I didn't want to remove anybody else's.

Cheers, Alexey