> Do you think this inconsistency is worth it, even if it turns out that most
> of our bindings turn out to choose studyCaps?
Certainly. And I am pretty sure that many binding authors
will understand why uglyCaps are largely inferior in the area
of comprehension.
> No doubt the non studlyCaps version is easier to read (btw in the studlyCaps
> version the first char should be lowercased). However is this a real
> scenario? How many words will there be in a method name?
I have seen Windows identifiers which are nearly that length. I
don't mind elaborated identifiers, but whatever their length
is, they need to be readable.
- Sascha
