I think in general Julia achieves a good (and difficult) balance between terseness, clarity and consistency.
That said, here is an example where she doesn't: function_name function_module functionloc One could say that "loc" is a very short word (and that it's clear enough to avoid the longer "location", that's fine), so it would be valid to remove the underscore and juxtapose it to "function", but consistency ends up completely broken then. It's disturbing to see this happening for one of three functions that form a cohesive set and are even listed consecutively in the official documentation. Please strive to avoid the R (and to some lesser extent, python) naming chaos. Maybe the coding convention rules are not clear enough. True, there will always be a place for subjetivity, but then let's try to find a rationale for degenerate cases like the above and codify it, or alternatively fix the violations while there is time, in order not to set a bad precedent. I don't want to exaggerate the importance of naming conventions, but consistency and terseness do reduce cognitive burden and, additionaly, make the language more attractive to newcomers initially affected by the Parkinson law of triviality, and more pleasant for the everday worker that focuses in getting the job done but nevertheless is a still a sensitive being ;) (a fortiori, this is specially true for Julia, considering that -by now- people are mostly courting her because of how beautiful she is). I propose to scan the documentation and spotlight another cases like the above, and try to explain why they are what they are, or what they should be instead. Then we could add the list to an issue and also revisit the naming rules in the face of evidence. Cheers -- Carlos
