Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Derek]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:38:08 +1100, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:


> British English may be the more "official" English, with American  
> English as a mere variation ...


In one sense, American English is often a sort of abbreviated version in  
which seemingly superfluous letters are omitted. But in other cases, it  
more accurately reflects pronunciation (colorize verses colourise).


> Speaking of...do the British actually pronounce colour with a "u" sound?  
> If
> not, I'd argue "color" really is a better spelling ;) (Not as good as
> "kulr", but whatever)

I'm not sure about British pronunciation (I'm Australian) but 'color' is  
said as "kull-ore' and 'colour' is said like 'kull-er' or even 'kull-ah'.

But my point, a part from being a bit whimsical, was that we can even have  
disagreements over fully spelt (spelled?) words let alone abbreviations  
(ironically that is word that *needs* shortening) so I think the criteria  
for publicly exposed function names should hinge on the consistency of  
naming conventions rather than focus on abbrv. vs. FullySpelledOutWords.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia