Support "raw" identifiers #524
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Using __X__ as identifiers for those that need to be kept as is, e.g. not conventionalized is a mostly nice way of doing it. One thing that still needs to consider is how to do constructors. Since we use the convention that a constructor needs to start with a capital, which no longer works. One solution, e.g. new__X__, is ugly and difficult to implement. Another would be to add e.g. a new function, to allow writing constructor(__X__, *arguments) This works cleanly, but is also not that nice.
|
Maybe another thing to consider here is the use-case now that we support language-specific code. For example, one use-case in the original issue is |
|
Not currently useful, see comment in #326. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Using
__X__as identifiers for those that need to be kept as is, e.g. not conventionalised is a mostly nice way of doing it.One thing that still needs to consider is how to do constructors. Since we use the convention that a constructor needs to start with a capital, which no longer works.
One solution, e.g.
new__X__, is ugly and difficult to implement. Another would be to add e.g. a new function, to allow writingconstructor(__X__, *arguments).This works cleanly, but is also not that nice.
Fixes #326.