Re: Accepted abbreviations
arefarray reference boolboolean const constant elemelement err error fh filehandle funcfunction hrefhash reference int integer interp interpreter i iterator? kv key/value num number obj object op operator, operation r read(able) ref reference regex regular expression expr expression rw read/write ro read-only str string sub subroutine w write(able) in input out output io input/output mem memory os operating system anon anonymous interestingly, among references there are aref and href, but scalar and subroutine references are not presented. Vadim
Re: Accepted abbreviations
konovalo skribis 2005-04-24 10:24 (+0400): interp interpreter I don't recall having seen that used. i iterator? Used as such, but I think discouraging i in favour of iter is a better idea, because i is also often used as index. anon anonymous Is this used? interestingly, among references there are aref and href, but scalar and subroutine references are not presented. Because I have never seen them used as singleletterref yet. Probably because sref would be highly ambiguous. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Re: Accepted abbreviations
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 07:46, Juerd wrote: Can we together compile a list of accepted abbreviations, so they can be consistently applied? Are you suggesting that these are accepted by the compiler or by us (for discussion)? Some may be source of discussion, in which case I think it's better to pick one -perhaps against someone's preference- than to use a dozen abbreviations for the same thing. One such example is regex, which used to be spelled by most as regexp. (Yes, I know we're using rules now... :).) This makes it sound like you mean us, not the compiler. I'll work with that assumption. You can decide to use whatever you like, but if you're honestly expecting that people participating in this mailing list are going to use your favorite abbreviations, you're the kind of person I think we should have more of in the world: optimists (opmst for short). ;-) Seriously, do any of us have a hard time making out what someone means if they say regexp vs regex? What's more, I'd rather you didn't w comments with single-letter abbreviations, as it would make it much harder for me to r. -- Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!' -Shriekback
Re: Accepted abbreviations
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-22 10:00 (-0400): On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 07:46, Juerd wrote: Can we together compile a list of accepted abbreviations, so they can be consistently applied? Are you suggesting that these are accepted by the compiler or by us (for discussion)? By us. Mostly for the purpose of choosing identifiers (str, and thus substr, not substring), but also for discussion (we talk about subs, not subroutines) and perhaps documentation. See below for further clarification. You can decide to use whatever you like, but if you're honestly expecting that people participating in this mailing list are going to use your favorite abbreviations, you're the kind of person I think we should have more of in the world: optimists (opmst for short). ;-) No, it's not to change the world. But whatever ends up in the official thing, should be consistent throughout. And for that, we need consensus. Because it can take a long time before people agree, I think we should begin as early as possible. Using identifiers consistently also helps when reading example code. For example, $fh is immediately clear, as are $dbh and $sth. But when someone uses $handle, $connection and $statement for these, it gets a bit harder. Learning something is easiest when in the explanation of one thing, you recognise parts of something you've already seen. And for that, you need consistent documentation, along with consistent usage in the language itself. To provide one example: a few years ago I had a very hard time trying to figure out what 'ary' stood for, simply because in the lots of Perl documentation and code, I had not seen it before. Things that come naturally for experienced programmers can be very intimidating for beginners, and wherever we can, I think we should provide consistency. Of course I'm NOT saying that we should start considering one of regex and regexp wrong. When it comes to reading, both are equally good and recogniseable to everyone subscribed to this mailinglist. But many beginners wonder what the p in regexp stands for! What's more, I'd rather you didn't w comments with single-letter abbreviations, as it would make it much harder for me to r. Those are for identifiers, so we don't end up with one function using :r and another using :read. That'd be inconsistent. I should have been clearer when I sent the initial list. I'm not trying to change the world. Sorry about that. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Re: Accepted abbreviations
Juerd skribis 2005-04-22 16:11 (+0200): Those are for identifiers, so we don't end up with one function using :r and another using :read. That'd be inconsistent. Although readline should not be made rline, and I still think both :r and :read should work! Bool +$read is shortr or preferrably with even simpler syntax: Bool +$read|r Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
