On 27/08/13 09:26, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > Traditionally I've also avoided abbreviated names (preferring context > over ctx, transaction over tx/txn). I'm not 100% convinced that this is > necessary, though, in these cases where there's a *conventional* and > obvious abbreviation. I mean, ctx is pretty obvious. "c" not so much > (though I use "c" a *lot* in llgo to shorten "compiler"; not great, but > at least I'm pretty consistent about it, so it's a project-specific > convention).
YMMV. I find "txn" far more obvious than "ctx". Talking of "c", I was astounded the first time I found a struct called "C" being used in juju tests. > Minimising cognitive overhead is more important than saving a few keystrokes. I believe this is exactly what Tim is trying to say :) -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
