On 7/20/07, Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> 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.
Perhaps you could explain your reasoning so that we can discuss this,
instead of simply repeating your opinion.
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.
I certainly agree that there should be a *canonical* name for things. And I
certainly agree that ad-hoc multiple names are a mess (e.g. we have
"ratcoef" and "ratcoeff" as synonyms, and "bothcoef" and "bothcoeff" as
synonyms, but only "coeff", not "coef", and only "coefmatrix" and not
"coeffmatrix").
However, I don't see that this excludes well-defined, systematic short
forms.
-s