Re: Bad coding standards

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A3A8272.30052FAD@mtws.visicom.com>,
  Wayne Lydecker <wayne@mtws.visicom.com> wrote:
> What would be nifty would be to allow a package
> spec define its own "approved" renames of the
> package that other packages would be allowed to
> use.  I'm sure I'll hear immediately why it's not
> a good idea though ;-)


So let me get this right, you are going to create
a long package name and a short package name. The
only purpose of the long package name is so that
people have to include a renames of the short package
name to the long package name in every single client,
and they must do it consistently.

This seems extraordinarily convoluted. Why not call
the package by the short name to start with, and then
include appropriate documentation in the package with
long names and whatever else you want.

The only function of the long name in practice in
your scheme will be to act as incomplete
documentation (incomplete because names alone never
substitute for full documentation) in clients.

But even decrepit environments can easily locate
the file for a package given the name of the package,
so it is trivial for someone to lookup the details on
a package that they don't recognize from the short
name.

One other advantage of using short names for packages
is that in debugging it means that you have to type
less junk.



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/