"Maybe keep the acronym and add a good method comment… " No. Please, really no. Do not use comments embedded *inside* methods to cover for naming the method badly. That is actually a counter-argument to using the acronym.
Also, if one Googles an acronym, such as the recently cited TMA, one gets results like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMA (a disambiguation page with a lengthy list). [I still don't know which TMA was meant, by the way, so I can't use it for the following example.] If one Googles Abstract Syntax Tree, one will find exactly what it means. But additionally, one could make a reasonable guess at an approximation of its meaning even without searching. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > Ramon Leon-5 wrote > > And my point made; I don't even know what that means. > > Ha ha, I googled it and even after seeing the definition still didn't > understand - we must be getting old ;-) > > Regarding the use of acronyms - while I agree with you as a general > principle, I wonder about this case. Since the argument IIUC is that "a > general user won't know the domain well enough to understand the acronym", > would they understand "abstractSyntaxTree"?! That, to me, is as opaque as > the acronym for one not acquainted with the domain, and may buy us little > at > the cost of a good amount of extra typing. Maybe keep the acronym and add a > good method comment… > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >
