On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 20:36:26 +1100, matthew green wrote: > > Renaming things is fine, but please try not to break it :-) > > i'm not sure i agree with any of the proposals here for renaming. > > these are well entrenched names and concepts here and i don't think > we should rename them without significant consideration. i've never > had problems with this code because of the terms, and if they all > change away from what history and others use, i don't see what the > benefit is.
I agree. I know the itch to clarify things with proper names, but in my experience more often than not it's not a good idea. It's not uncommon to realize at some point in the rototill that the new set of names has its own problems; except they are sort of obvious for you since you've just been through all this code, so you consider them minor warts in what is otherwise an improvement. But for someone else that original set of warts and your new set of warts are not that different in their wartiness, except that all existing history that uses old names has been obfuscated by the renaming. Spare a thought for all those well meaning English spelling reforms... -uwe
