From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-24 10:33:21
David Bergman wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>> 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 locally.
> Exactly. What do certain people think is so hard with "fs"? *If*
> someone would not have an intuitive sense of what "fs" might mean, it
> should be a fairly short education...
> Regarding non-native speakers, I thought we were all English speaking
> it came to software engineering? I do not understand why, and how, the
> nativeness of this tongue would affect the comprehensibility of "fs."
> I think we all agree on having telling names. I think we do disagree
> on whether "fs" (and similar abridged variants) are indicative as to
> their meaning. And, some people are dogmatically against abridged
> lexemes. I
> assume some of those people live in the United States of America,
> whereas I live in the U.S.
Actually if namespace identifiers in C++ could have a dot ( '.' ) in them
and if it was normally acceptable to use all uppercase letters in namespace
identifiers ( usually reserved for macros ), I would be more likely to agree
with you. Now imagine if 'U.S.' was 'us', don't you think such a short
abbreviation could cause problems in normal use, and the United States would
be more understandable ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk