Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Readable names
Message-ID: <2857@enea.se>
Date: 16 Mar 88 08:34:29 GMT
References: <2318@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2835@enea.se> <1810@sics.se> <25548@cca.CCA.COM>
Reply-To: sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog)
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: ENEA DATA AB, Sweden
Lines: 22

Richard Harter (g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP) writes:
>Just a note -- it is my experience that long (readable) identifier names
>should not be used.  They appear to make a program more readable and
>self documenting, and so on.  However there are two disadvantages:
>The first is that they make code very bulky; secondly it is harder to
>keep track of names.  I.e. you have to remember, at each writing, the
>exact words used in the name.

The examples I had in my article were of course extreme examples to
illustrate my point about case shifts. If your note was directed against 
such extremes, I agree with you. 
  But if you mean to imply that NumOfAcc would be better than 
NumberOfAccidents, I have to object. NumOfAcc is harder to remember, 
since I have to remember the exact abbreviation too. (Your first argument 
may still be valid, though. Particulary if it is a freqeuntly used name.)
  As a whole, choosing names that are easy to remember and to understand
is not always that easy.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm        
sommar@enea.UUCP           "Si tu crois l'amour tabou...
                            Regarde bien, les yeux d'un fou!!!" -- Ange