On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:25:34 +0100, Doug Schepers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that most of the useful arguments have been made. Stripping
away the arguments themselves, there are only 3 stances:
1) Shorter names are preferred;
2) More descriptive names are preferred;
3) Names matching existing conventions are preferred.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that #1 is the odd one out. I
don't care what the final name is, but it should match the latter 2
principals.
One of the arguments that was made was also that the existing methods have
failed, which would make #3 the odd one out and probably #2 as well. "I
don't really care what the final name, but it should match the first
principle..."
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
