#ast vs. #parseTree
Locked
123
123
 
|
You mean where you live? That excludes 90% and more of the world. So when is a abbreviation ok again? Norbert |
|
|
First, my message was *defending* most of the short names that someone else was attacking. For the record, I am *far* more worried about the fragility of typical Smalltalk code than I am about method names, which are generally pretty good. Second, the criterion was implicit but fairly clear: if an abbreviation of any kind is sufficiently common that someone who wants the semantics will recognise the identifier, use it. "ulp" is MORE familiar to people who need it than "unitOfLeastPrecision" (spit), so it is a better name. In the same way, HTTP is a *better* name than HyperTextWhatever (amongst other things because the word is Hypertext, so HyperText violates a Smalltalk style rule that says internal capitals at *word* boundaries) because it is familiar and takes less effort to recognise than the fully spelled out thing. Third, the rule as always is "intention-revealing names". (Another Smalltalk style rule that I did not invent.) #onDNU:do: is a confusing name because when I saw it I expected the first argument to be a signalled exception, not a selector. There is nothing wrong with the DNU bit; if you know you want to catch a DNU you are probably familiar with "DNU" (and don't want to fuss with whether it means Does Not Understand or Did Not Understand). As a particular example from the list, #log or #logarithm are both ambiguous, while #ln is NOT ambiguous (in the context of numbers), making it a better name, Finally, the significant point was not where I live (about 1/1600 of the world's population live here) but when I went to primary school, which was somewhat more than 50 years ago. Twenty years before that, children learned how to calculate square roots by hand. (Cue Four Yorkshiremen. :-)) On 8 May 2018 at 20:00, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
to talk seriously, I agree #onDNU:do: would be better called with its long name.
now, well known acronyms have their place in pharo as complete, self explaining method names too. is about matter of common sense to opt for one or the other (for example, “ln" is more known in maths that its “long name" neperian logarithm). Rules and conventions are not written in stone and smart people can have an agreement on when to break them. Acronyms is this case: while *in general* using them is bad, well known acronyms as HTTP, AST, etc. are fine and even sometimes better. cheers! Esteban > On 9 May 2018, at 02:03, Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]> wrote: > > First, my message was *defending* most of the short names > that someone else was attacking. For the record, I am > *far* more worried about the fragility of typical Smalltalk > code than I am about method names, which are generally > pretty good. > > Second, the criterion was implicit but fairly clear: > if an abbreviation of any kind is sufficiently common > that someone who wants the semantics will recognise the > identifier, use it. "ulp" is MORE familiar to people > who need it than "unitOfLeastPrecision" (spit), so it is > a better name. In the same way, HTTP is a *better* name > than HyperTextWhatever (amongst other things because the > word is Hypertext, so HyperText violates a Smalltalk style > rule that says internal capitals at *word* boundaries) > because it is familiar and takes less effort to recognise > than the fully spelled out thing. > > Third, the rule as always is "intention-revealing names". > (Another Smalltalk style rule that I did not invent.) > #onDNU:do: is a confusing name because when I saw it I > expected the first argument to be a signalled exception, > not a selector. There is nothing wrong with the DNU bit; > if you know you want to catch a DNU you are probably > familiar with "DNU" (and don't want to fuss with whether > it means Does Not Understand or Did Not Understand). > As a particular example from the list, #log or > #logarithm are both ambiguous, while #ln is NOT > ambiguous (in the context of numbers), making it a > better name, > > Finally, the significant point was not where I live > (about 1/1600 of the world's population live here) > but when I went to primary school, which was somewhat > more than 50 years ago. Twenty years before that, > children learned how to calculate square roots by hand. > (Cue Four Yorkshiremen. :-)) > > > > On 8 May 2018 at 20:00, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> Am 08.05.2018 um 05:15 schrieb Richard O'Keefe <[hidden email]>: >> >> #gcd: >> #lcm: >> >> These come from elementary (primary school in my day) mathematics. They are the standard names. > > You mean where you live? That excludes 90% and more of the world. So when is a abbreviation ok again? > > Norbert > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Richard O'Keefe
Richard O'Keefe wrote
> First, my message was *defending* most of the short names > that someone else was attacking. For the record, I am > *far* more worried about the fragility of typical Smalltalk > code than I am about method names, which are generally > pretty good. > > ... If by "someone else" you mean me, I was obviously sarcastic. If you are OK with GCD, LCM, ULP and other abbreviations, why get rid of AST? It's well-known and unambigous term in respective area, that is also usually used as identifier in other programming languages and libraries (e.g. ast module in Python, Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.Ast module in F#). -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html |
|
|
I'm personally OK with 'ast'. Did I write anything that made you think I wasn't? Of course things are contextual. In VMS one took "AST" to mean "Asynchronous System Trap". But even in VMS it was not confusing in a parsing context. As for "obviously sarcastic", I'm afraid there's this thing called "Poe's Law". On 9 May 2018 at 23:57, webwarrior <[hidden email]> wrote: Richard O'Keefe wrote |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |