Powell, Gary wrote:
I'm siding with Dave A and the longer names.
You are missing most of the points, though. ;-)
You can always shorten it in your code with an alias.
This is precisely what makes it dangerous. Design mistakes that have a trivial workaround are the worst, because you will never get the feedback that will set you on the right path. Everyone just patches around it locally.
For me it's a matter of future expansion, and maintenance, we have boost::bind, and boost::lambda::bind, and perhaps soon boost:fcpp::lambda which is the namespace which the function? If we use apprev. 4 everythg, thn, we lose contx.
No we do not. The abbrv anlgy is flwd. It's more like English::this English::kind English::of English::writing versus en::this en::alternative en::style.
boost::fs =? "FileSystem", "FastSort", "FirstSearch", "FloatingSymbols".... yes these are a bit contrived but you can usually use "using namespace", or a namespace alias safely within a function scope. Then when you leave the company the next poor maintainer of your code has a chance.
Also a global search is easier if the letters to be searched for are more or less a unique set.
Of course it isn't. Your global search for 'filesystem' will only find using directives and namespace alias directives. A global search for 'fs' will stand a better chance to point you to the lines that actually use something from 'fs'.