On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas < [email protected]> wrote:
> I think that the "ola" or "one letter abbreviations" are bad style and they difficult the reading of code and commands . I agree, to a degree, as far as command names go. As just stated, adding a few docstrings will clarify cff, cfa, cffm and cfam. But I no longer mentally expand cffm. I simply use it. These are truly important commands, so having short names saves a ton of typing. And short names reduce the mental load. As far as Leo's code goes, w e are going to have to disagree about this one. Leo's one-letter abbreviations work for me, and longer names simply wouldn't. Longer names for truly important items like c, g, p, c.p, p.v, etc would be unbearable. Ditto for d, w, etc. >...a balance between reading and writing can be found. For me, c.p is best for both reading *and* writing. Nobody is ever going to convince me otherwise. Adding the properties on vnodes and positions were one of Leo's happiest moments. > >From the usability/readability point of view, some kind of code/completion suggestions in the node body and/or mini-buffer would be a good direction in helping leo to cause the best first impression that is looked in 5.2 releases. Leo already has all of this. Short names avoid the need for code completion or tab completion. This seems like a small thing but definitely is *not.* I think I am reliable judge of what is and isn't convenient when dealing with Leo's code base. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
