Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Name of application entry point #2265

Closed

Conversation

acpoppe
Copy link

@acpoppe acpoppe commented Oct 6, 2022

This proposal presents a bit of background information on entry point names from
other languages and draws the conclusion that Carbon should adopt Main as its
entry point name from the little objective information and trends that can be
deduced.

Fixes #2004.

@acpoppe acpoppe force-pushed the proposal-name-of-application- branch from 7c6c6b2 to 7b0b82d Compare October 6, 2022 20:51
@acpoppe acpoppe marked this pull request as ready for review October 7, 2022 05:50
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from jonmeow October 7, 2022 05:50
@jonmeow jonmeow added the proposal rfc Proposal with request-for-comment sent out label Oct 7, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot added the proposal A proposal label Oct 7, 2022
@jonmeow
Copy link
Contributor

jonmeow commented Oct 7, 2022

I'm assuming you're wanting proposal review? It looks like this didn't get the labels for it (not sure why, the branch is named like it came from the script), so I've added them.

proposals/p2265.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@geoffromer
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to me, but remember to update the PR description to match the abstract.

zygoloid referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2022
* Fix filter step reference

* pipe
Copy link
Contributor

@zygoloid zygoloid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks reasonable to me.

One argument in favor of "Run" that I think is worth mentioning is that it follows the common advice to give functions names that are verb phrases rather than noun phrases. Following established conventions seems likely to be more important and better aligned with our goals, but we should present the strongest argument available for the alternatives we decide against.

proposals/p2265.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@zygoloid zygoloid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One argument in favor of "Run" that I think is worth mentioning is that it follows the common advice to give functions names that are verb phrases rather than noun phrases. Following established conventions seems likely to be more important and better aligned with our goals, but we should present the strongest argument available for the alternatives we decide against.

To be clear: I'd like Run to be explicitly listed in the "Alternatives considered", because it is an alternative that we explicitly considered and had some specific motivation for. I've added a suggested edit to capture this alternative.

proposals/p2265.md Show resolved Hide resolved
zygoloid added a commit to zygoloid/carbon-lang that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2023
zygoloid
zygoloid previously approved these changes Feb 1, 2023
@zygoloid
Copy link
Contributor

@chandlerc has asked for more discussion on this as part of the broader question of how we approach the default / main package.

@josh11b
Copy link
Contributor

josh11b commented Mar 1, 2023

FYI, #1869 was recently resolved in favor of naming the entry function Run

@jonmeow jonmeow dismissed zygoloid’s stale review March 1, 2023 17:10

Dismissing approval due to #1869

@chandlerc
Copy link
Contributor

Also, we should either sequence this an #2550 or merge them in whatever way makes the most sense to @acpoppe and @zygoloid -- quite happy to focus on a update here and defer #2550 until that lands if that works better.

@acpoppe acpoppe closed this Jun 17, 2023
zygoloid added a commit to zygoloid/carbon-lang that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2023
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2023
Make the preamble of simple programs more ergonomic, by removing the
`package Main` from the main package and removing the `package`
declaration
entirely from the main source file. Imports within a single package no
longer
need to, and are not permitted to, specify the package name.

Partially covers #2001 / #1136.
Covers #1869.
Supersedes #2265.
Addresses design idea #2323.

---------

Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: josh11b <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
proposal rfc Proposal with request-for-comment sent out proposal A proposal
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make proposal for application entry point
6 participants