[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: short or long names

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 38 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 38 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Sven Hartrumpf wrote:

>How about shorter names (and making names analogous for read and write)?
>write-sharing (or write-shared or ...) instead of write-showing-shared
>read-sharing (or read-shared or ...)   instead of read-with-shared-structure

I like (write-showing-shared), but then my code is remarkable
for its whacking verbosity.  You're right that the name is
longer than most people will like.  Of the alternatives you
give, I like (write-shared) better than (write-sharing) --
it says better what is actually being done. But neither names
the operation as precisely as (write-showing-shared).

Maybe a (write/ss) shortcut, the same way (call/cc) popped up
in the wake of another function with an unpopularly long name?

What do others think?