[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [Next Generation ROS] Relaxing ROS2 topic/service field name restrictions

William Woodall ros.discourse at gmail.com
Wed Oct 10 16:50:27 UTC 2018





[quote="clalancette, post:5, topic:6371"]

If we relax the restrictions, we could go back to making it consistent with ROS1, but at the cost of being inconsistent with earlier versions of ROS2. Im not sure which way we would go ...

[/quote]



I think the obvious thing to do is go with the larger current user base, so go back to the ROS 1 style. That is if consistency is the only thing that matters, but I see it as improving what was in ROS 1 to make that message more consistent with the others. By and large the rules we're enforcing in ROS 2 were the common convention in ROS 1, it's just that this particular message was different from the other ROS 1 messages, so when we enabled the enforcement it was out of line already.



[quote="clalancette, post:5, topic:6371"]

That would be possible as well, though I still think it is a developer unfriendly. After all, there is no *reason* a message cant have CamelCase fields, so for those who want to do that they could never have a warning-free build.

[/quote]



For me the obvious case solution is to provide a linter, enable it by default, and provide a convenient way to silence the linter in particular cases that you're unwilling to change, a la `# noqa`.











---

[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/relaxing-ros2-topic-service-field-name-restrictions/6371/6) or reply to this email to respond.









More information about the ros-users mailing list