http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1170260


in reply to Re^2: CamelCase really that bad?
in thread CamelCase really that bad?

I think "the standard" is a bit too strong of a statement.

You're over thinking it :)

Package names are supposed to be capitalized, so yes CamelCase is something generally expected,

Also know as the standard convention

but as for method names I don't see how camelCase is better than CamelCase, both are used, although snake_case is something I see much more often in Perl code.

Do more research :)

You see one used more than the other, so one is the standard camelCase

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_convention_%28programming%29

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: CamelCase really that bad?
by zwon (Abbot) on Aug 25, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
    You see one used more than the other, so one is the standard camelCase

    After spending a lot of time on research (maybe even 5 minutes), I couldn't actually remember/find a single module that uses any camel case. So I guess the standard is not to use it ;)

[reply]

      After spending a lot of time on research (maybe even 5 minutes), I couldn't actually remember/find a single module that uses any camel case. So I guess the standard is not to use it ;)

      Follow the link provided and you can see a small sample

      Also look at the list of core modules, FileHandle, FindBin, I18N::LangTags, Tie::Array, its all the SameCamel

[reply]
        Those modules are not using camel case for methods at all. For package names there was no question from my side.
[reply]
        Follow the link provided and you can see a small sample
        You mean the link to the wikipedia page which states that the standard in Perl is "Locally scoped variables and subroutine names are lowercase with infix underscores." and not camelCase?
[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom