[Masterview-users] View structure

Deb Lewis djlewis at acm.org
Fri Apr 6 17:55:25 EDT 2007


ditto [tho I don't mind :dest rather than :destination].  But I definitely
lean towards clear names at the expense of a bit more verbosity vs. unix-ish
crypticness like :src.

IMO generally easier for people to work with libraries when there's a clear
point of view on abbrevations [not], then they don't have to remember what
this package's favorite variation of abbreviations are some set of
termininology.  Doesn't eliminate the need/importance of clear, consistent
choice of names on the part of the developer, but makes it easier for
clients I think.

~ Deb 

-----Original Message-----
From: masterview-users-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:masterview-users-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of David Koontz
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:32 PM
To: masterview-users at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Masterview-users] View structure

The hash is fine from my perspective but personally I prefer less
abbreviated names, :source vs :src and especially :extensions or :types vs
:exts.

David Koontz



More information about the Masterview-users mailing list