[zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings

[michael.compton@littleedge.co.uk]

In general code is write once read many, so I see little need for striving for the shortest name possible, most editing environments even have intelligent completion algorithms. 

Not advocating an API change here, though.


----- Reply message -----
From: "Pieter Hintjens" <ph at imatix.com>
To: "ZeroMQ development list" <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
Subject: [zeromq-dev] conventions in bindings
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 11:24


On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Gary Wright <at2002+zmq at me.com> wrote:

> message:
> fragment:
> frame:

Makes sense. "fragment" is long, for an API word. But in fact the only
real issue to solve here is consistency: any semantics will work, if
repeated consistently. So there will be a lot of changes to make in
bindings, code, and docs. Anyone proposing changes has to be willing
to take this work on. There is no other way it will happen. ("I think
someone should do X" does not work and never has).

-Pieter
_______________________________________________
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20120202/78cbcf50/attachment.htm>