Re^5: CamelCase really that bad?

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

Comment on Re^5: CamelCase really that bad?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: CamelCase really that bad? by zwon (Abbot) on Aug 27, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
Those modules are not using camel case for methods at all. For package names there was no question from my side.	[reply]
Re^7: CamelCase really that bad? by Anonymous Monk on Aug 28, 2016 at 03:50 UTC
Those modules are not using camel case for methods at all. For package names there was no question from my side. :) Well, they weren't given as an example of using camel case for methods :D :P ^\s*sub\s+[a-zA-Z]+[A-Z][a-z]+ file:.pm$ -file:WriteAll.pm -file:Metadata.pm -file:AutoInstall.pm · CPAN->grep	[reply]
Re^8: CamelCase really that bad? by zwon (Abbot) on Aug 29, 2016 at 19:55 UTC
Awesome, thank you! Without going through all the results and doing any actual counting I would say `camelCase` for methods is used about as much as `CamelCase`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^6: CamelCase really that bad? by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Aug 28, 2016 at 07:55 UTC
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.