<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Zarafa WebAccess v6.20.4-14107">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<title>Convenience over extensibility? Or: How to build on top of hu.dwim.rdbms?</title>
<style type="text/css">
body
{
font-family: Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 12px;
padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
margin: 0px;
border-style: none;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
p, ul, li
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>>we stick to long names (and use fuzzy completion in slime).<br /><br />I will try this fuzzy completion thing but I'm sceptical. Shorter names may still give you an advantage when<br />it comes to reading code. :)<br /><br />You may argue that the win in clarity is well worth it. I would would argue that while<br />it is true that short names can easily obfuscate code it's not necessarily so.<br />But I don't want to get into this debate. When working with other people I would always adapt.<br /><br />Just want to add that I'm grateful for your software, thank you.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />chris</p>
!DSPAM:4cd4180e48581103713428!
</body>
</html>