It's noisy in code you *do* understand, which is the bulk of the code we should be dealing with the majority of the time.
I do not parse this initially as a type because that generally doesn't make sense given context. Generally the names involved are also unlikely to be types, based on name alone. It would also add to our already-pungent code smell. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Mats Palmgren <m...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 2016-04-08 23:03, Jeff Gilbert wrote: >> >> Strong preference against eFoo, here. :) > > > Strong preference *for* eFoo, here. :) > > If I see Bar::Foo anywhere in code I'm not familiar with, my brain > is likely to first parse that as a type before realizing that, hmm > that doesn't make sense in an expression context, and then I will > likely have to lookup what that silly Bar thing is just to be sure. > > eFoo is unambiguous and utterly clear. > > /Mats > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
