On 13/12/11 20:21, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 19:09 +0100, Guillaume Emont wrote: >> It makes sense in a way, but I am afraid things would not be clear >> enough, and >> new programmers might be confused between GrlConfig and GrlOptions if >> both >> exist. My rule of thumb for these things tend to be "go for the most >> explicit >> version", and my rationale for this is that code is written once and >> read many >> times, so I prefer to favour readability over ease of writing. >> But then, the question is whether the longer or the shorter name is >> the most >> readable. > > Uhm... yes, didn't realize about the GrlConfig. > > I agree it would lead to confusion. But having longer names is a pain to > type. And doesn't mean that will increase the readability quite a lot. > > And providing that users will type more GrlOptions than GrlConfig, if > shorting GrlOptions I would change GrlConfig by GrlPluginConfiguration, > or similar, to avoid confusions. I don't this "pain" to type is that terrible, considering you could be using some editor with auto-completion features. However, using GrlPluginConfiguration instead of GrlConfig sounds nice, and would remove any ambiguity with GrlOptions. BR -- Simon Pena <spena igalia com> Igalia - Free Software Engineering
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature