On 10 May 2013 14:59, John Regehr <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a spectrum here; at one end we have something like Hungarian > notation (which I realize nobody likes) and at the other hand we don't need > to do any encoding of types in the names at all. I'm curious what people > would prefer.
The faux Hungarian notation makes sense here. People typically dislike it because the type information is inferred from usage and context. For cases like creduce the end result would be a mess of unreadable names. IMHO encoding type information into the name is helpful for reading reduced testcases. +1 to using m* for methods +1 for fn* for functions, etc. -- Eitan Adler
