From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-24 07:02:55
Powell, Gary wrote:
> I'm siding with Dave A and the longer names.
You are missing most of the points, though. ;-)
> You can always shorten it in your code with an alias.
This is precisely what makes it dangerous. Design mistakes that have a
trivial workaround are the worst, because you will never get the feedback
that will set you on the right path. Everyone just patches around it
> For me it's a matter of future expansion, and maintenance, we have
> boost::bind, and boost::lambda::bind, and perhaps soon
> boost:fcpp::lambda which is the namespace which the function? If we
> use apprev. 4 everythg, thn, we lose contx.
No we do not. The abbrv anlgy is flwd. It's more like English::this
English::kind English::of English::writing versus en::this en::alternative
> boost::fs =? "FileSystem", "FastSort", "FirstSearch",
> "FloatingSymbols".... yes these are a bit contrived but you can
> usually use "using namespace", or a namespace alias safely within a
> function scope. Then when you leave the company the next poor
> maintainer of your code has a chance.
> Also a global search is easier if the letters to be searched for are
> more or less a unique set.
Of course it isn't. Your global search for 'filesystem' will only find using
directives and namespace alias directives. A global search for 'fs' will
stand a better chance to point you to the lines that actually use something
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk