environment function names

On 10/26/06, Noel Cragg <noelred-bean.com> wrote:
> > Do you think I should change the name prefix for
the environment
> > functions from 'mn_environment_' to 'mn_env_'? 
I'm trying to stay
> > away from abbreviations because I don't like the
asthetics when
> > they're taken to an extreme, but, golly, that's
eight columns
> > shorter...
>
> Aren't you already using an abbreviation for
"minor" as "mn" in all
> of these names?  I don't see any problem.

Yes --- but that's a ubiquitous lexeme; in C++, I'd put it
in a
namespace and it wouldn't exist at all.

Some code uses more aggressive abbreviation than other code.
 It's
never very important; people make decisions based on
features,
reliability, compatibility, and so on.  As far as names are
concerned,
the pros just deal with whatever is there and move on.

But once the decision's been made, there is a sense in which
some code
is more *pleasant* than other code to work on.  And cryptic
names
detract from that.

Having written the above, I've realized that what really
makes me
miserable is stuff that  is ill-organized or ill-architected
or
needlessly constrained, and inconsistency in naming is far
more of a
pain than any halfway plausible but consistent abbreviation.

So, 'env' it is.

_______________________________________________
Minor mailing list
Minorred-bean.com
http:/
/www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/minor