> I wonder what you think about the code in o.a.f.hyphenation.TernaryTree, > where the author apparently did not know Java, and introduces the libc > functions strcmp, strcpy, and strlen, and which uses the Java char type > (within the String type) for coding tree pointers!
My apprehension about certain areas of your code (and not the majority!) stems from such examples, and the headaches they can bring. This is old code that I had no influence over at the time and I do not want it to have any bearing on where the project is heading. > If you wanted to make a serious case against using short names, you would > start first by analyzing existing FOP usage and using such an analysis to > establish concrete metrics. I do not think I have focused on the length of variable or member names have I? I did a PhD in mathematics and I have a soft spot for the aesthetic value of short names. It is always pleasing to distill a mathematical proof to the simplist form possible and using consise variable naming is often a part of that. That said, I do not think that working code benefits from this approach: what can seem like an efficient and powerful piece of code when written can prove to be an overly difficult thing to read later. Unlike yourself, apparently, my memory ain't so good and I benefit from code that has clear intention. Peter
