On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:sgmfyzmrfygshlmfq...@forum.dlang.org... [[...] > > But, either option is better than "Clr" or "Col". > > "clr" is the verb "clear" and "col" is "column" :) [...]
clr == common language runtime col == polysemous word meaning anything from column to color to collect to colon. ;-) Jokes aside, though I'm not suggesting we actually do this, I frankly find Col an acceptable abbreviation for *both* "Color" and "Column", because context usually makes it clear which one is meant. The human brain is highly capable of inferring intention from context (which is why function overloading is even remotely workable in the first place). Witness, for example, the variety of meanings the word 'set' may have depending on context. It's a horribly overloaded, overused, and ambiguous word, objectively speaking. But we also use it every day without even thinking twice, even in programming (e.g., set a variable vs. a set of objects vs. an object of type Set vs. language rules set in stone). T -- Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull. -- Sam. Johnson