guide() to get the value of the attribute "guide", and
guide(v) to set the value of the attribute "guide" may
be unavoidable for the following reason. The C++ code that is generated
uses this convention and I am not sure if the standard will dictate
things are this level. So, for consistency sake, we could use the same
standard.
As for type names, and member functions, if we would like to
be different from Amulet, then we could use the smalltalk convention,
i.e. type names begin with caps, and member functions begin with smalls.
Also, since Amulet uses underscores, we probably have to avoid using
underscores. Any opinions on this?
As for the standard C++ classes, I think we can use LEDA. We
have used LEDA for a while, and haven't had much problems with it. I
don't like the idea of implementing our own library because there
are people who do it better. One thing which we will have to consider
here, is that there is some work in terms of standardizing the C++
library (similar to libc.a). The standard aims at specifying a set of
standard classes, and a standard interface to them. So, how independent
should we remain from a particular implementation?
-jk