Willy,
I agree that this is largely a matter of taste/opinion. However, that doesn't mean I'm above compromise.
To be honest, I used to use similar naming conventions to what you use as well. Then, I discovered the Old OMR Spec, which defined a quite rigid method for naming and describing models. At first, I was a little adverse to it, struggling with it's syntax and mourning the loss of information inherent in my old naming schemes. However, as I learned to use it, I grew on me and I came to value the subtle way it described models using minimalistic naming conventions.
Then, they drew up a new OMR and (apparently) threw out these old conventions. With only the simple statement "A logical naming scheme is highly desired" to guide me, I simply fell back to the old conventions, feeling they were very logicial. This is how I then proceded, until you brought the issue of more descriptive names. Now, I'm conflicted all over again.
I've attempted to combine our two methods as a compromise. However, I by no means think it's perfect. It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.
As a final note, perhaps this is something we should start a new topic for discussing? (Or perhaps an agreeable Admin would be willing to slice this discussion off into a new topic for us.)
I agree that this is largely a matter of taste/opinion. However, that doesn't mean I'm above compromise.
To be honest, I used to use similar naming conventions to what you use as well. Then, I discovered the Old OMR Spec, which defined a quite rigid method for naming and describing models. At first, I was a little adverse to it, struggling with it's syntax and mourning the loss of information inherent in my old naming schemes. However, as I learned to use it, I grew on me and I came to value the subtle way it described models using minimalistic naming conventions.
Then, they drew up a new OMR and (apparently) threw out these old conventions. With only the simple statement "A logical naming scheme is highly desired" to guide me, I simply fell back to the old conventions, feeling they were very logicial. This is how I then proceded, until you brought the issue of more descriptive names. Now, I'm conflicted all over again.
I've attempted to combine our two methods as a compromise. However, I by no means think it's perfect. It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.
As a final note, perhaps this is something we should start a new topic for discussing? (Or perhaps an agreeable Admin would be willing to slice this discussion off into a new topic for us.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm theJude! So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, his Judeness, or uh, Juder, or el Juderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
I'm theJude! So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, his Judeness, or uh, Juder, or el Juderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.