I guess we all agree on
(a) name standardization (of a sort to be agreed upon!) is a
good thing
(b) name consistency is a good thing
(c) short names are good for often-used commands/functions
(d) long names are good otherwise
(e) name/command completion is a good thing
(f) a nicely-organized manual is a good thing
Kostas
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> > I don't know how seriously you are proposing this, but for the record,
>> > I'm pretty much completely opposed to officially-blessed abbreviations.
>>
>> And the reason is...?
>
> Two or more names for the same thing is a disaster.
>
>> Do you really like the current situation, where there is no
>> standardization
>> of abbreviations? Consider that "factor" (= factorization) can be
>> represented as any one of "fac" (ratfac, facsum), "fact" (factcomb,
>> berlefact), or "factor". "Fact" can also mean "factorial" (factcomb,
>> factlim, genfact) and "factor" (= coefficient) (numfactor).
>
> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I want to
> avoid having two or more names for the same thing.
> e.g. both some_long_name and s_lname. From my point of
> view we have to choose one or the other.
>
> Whether a word which occurs in multiple names is written
> the same way in each case is a separate issue. I guess it
> would be a good idea to write it the same way in each case.
>
> best
> Robert