I understand the recommendation, I just would like to add that sometimes finding a good identifier is pretty difficult. The example of using a person's email address is just not stable enough, there are lots of people who are changing email addresses continuously and many of the addresses don't contain any clue as to the person they belong to.
And since the 1.5 years that I live in Spain now I'm still amazed at the number of people that have EXACTLY the same name! Even taking into account that they have 2 last names (from both parents) and normally several first names as well! (Probably due to the fact that it was customary to name children after grandparents) Of course it would still be possible to use names and some algorithm to ensure uniqueness in some way and I understand that from the perspective of path name stability this is preferred. On 7/10/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, On 7/10/07, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ..and really, i cannot see a drawback for naming > nodes in a meaningful way. ;) There is always an inherent cost in naming things especially in design time, but as discussed the benefit of naming really outweights this cost in most, if not all, cases. So, very much agreed. In fact I would rather phrase the rule as a pattern like "Use locally unique names" instead of using an antipattern. Also, the emphasis on proper naming nicely resonates with the recommendation to avoid identifiers. BR, Jukka Zitting
