I haven't looked at the code in question on this particular discussion so this is not to criticize.
Overly concise variables names should be acceptable within limited scope. Calling an ObjectOutputStream oos may be sufficient when it's created and destroyed within one little method. Using i or z may suffice as loop counters within a single simple method, while you may want a longer name simply to track the loop if it gets more complex nesting loops. A project should have defined standards for meaningful variable naming, particularly when they're declared at the class level or they're public, protected, or passed in to the method. The simplest readability standard is of course the layout. Eclipse has plenty of preferences and an option to export them. Line wraps, comment format, etc should be consistant within a project. Of course if code must be reused it helps if standard naming can be enforced by such as abstract methods and interfaces. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Hancock [mailto:peter.hanc...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:34 AM To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk > 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
