> Heh. > > Overall the problem of choosing names by consensus is that the > intersection is withering real fast. I agree 80% with Kenny's and > Michel's choices. Others also seem to agree about the same percentage. > The problem is that nobody agrees on the _same_ 80%. The net > intersection of several people's "obviously good" naming schemes and > conventions quickly falls to zero as the size of the group increases. > > Andrei
Well, then it's probably a case where you should find a naming scheme that you're happy with and is relatively clear to most people. There are always going to be people who don't like a particular name or think that one name is clearer than another. So, it seems like it would be a good idea to get some suggestions for names (like you're doing), pick what you like, verify that there not considered horrifically bad by the group (though that doesn't mean that the group agrees with them), and then just use them. As long as the names are fairly clear, I don't think that it matters all that much. I know that even if I were picking all of the names myself, there would be bound to be a few that I didn't like because they were too long or following a particular naming convention made some of the functions have poorer names than I'd like, so I certainly don't expect you to come up with names that I'd like perfectly if I can't. And, as you say, a naming scheme that I like perfectly would undoubtedly be disliked by others, even if you could find it. Find a naming scheme you like and go with it. I'd say that the most important things for the names are that they are relatively clear and consistent. When it comes down to it, it's what the functions actually do which matters most. Beyond that, we just need the names to clearly indicate that function. So, names are important, but don't kill yourself over them. You clearly can't please everyone. - Jonathan M Davis
