Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:04:20PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
> The names need to be good enough that the code is reasonably
> understandable without necessarily having to look at the documentation
> (though there's a good chance that you're still going to have to look
> at the docs), and they should be good enough that most people have a
> good chance of finding what they're looking for when they look for a
> funcition or type in the docs. But there are so many variations on how
> things can be named, and so many people expect different things, that
> you're never going to win. At best, you please the majority. But names
> are _always_ bikeshedding issues.

+1.


> A _lot_ of what goes into symbol naming is personal preference and a
> matter of what you've previously been exposed to rather than anything
> objective, and there will pretty much always be disagreements on it.
[...]

That's true. Most of the abbreviations I've been comfortable with are
those that I've learned when I was a teenage aspiring programmer. In
retrospect, a lot of it makes no sense. I just preferred it that way
'cos that's the way I first learned it, and AFAICT at the time, that was
the way it had *always* been (which is, of course, not true in
retrospect).


T

-- 
Любишь кататься - люби и саночки возить.