Re: Case of function names (Was: Re: comments on Decem

[BTW:  I thought we wern't supposed to crosspost]

Quoting David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> > I think that you could argue it both ways
> 
> Yes every argument has two sides: (right and wrong:-)
> 
> > when the function name
> > includes the name of a relevant data type from XML Schema, since
> those
> > data type names use camel case. It depends on whether you think
> people
> > will be more confused by the naming conventions of functions being
> > unpredictable or by not using the same naming convention when
> > referring to the built-in data types within function names as you do
> > when referring to them elsewhere.
> 
> The old XSLT 1.1 draft went into great detail about mapping between the
> lowercase-hypenated-style to the camelCaseStyle in order to preserve th
> enature of xpath names.
> 
> If you are mapping xpath hyphenated names to a language that doesn't
> allow - in names and conventionally uses camel case, then it is natural
> to drop the hyphens and to camel case the component words. In
> particular
> you _have_ to drop the hyphens when going in that direction. Thus it is
> natural when going in the other direction _from_ a camel case naming
> convention to do the opposite, to lowercase and add hyphens. Of course
> schema names are qnames so could have hyphens, but don't, but I believe
> the same principle should apply.

I remember when hyphens were replaced by underscores when mapping names to
languages which were too empoverished to allow hyphens in names.


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list