Naming convention suggests name that is read incorrectly

I mean, to be fair, Universally Unique IDentifier has two letters from the last word. So shouldn't that be UuId, then?

This thread immediately brought that 2013 bikeshed to mind. Ah, those were good times. Pity no one took my suggestion seriously:

There seems to be a basic assumption of ASCII identifiers. Hey, this
ain't the eighties!

Let's have us an XᴍʟHᴛᴛᴘRequest. Absolutely clear with no scope for
misunderstanding in either direction: Gᴄ; Rᴄ; Aʀᴄ; SimpleHᴛᴛᴘServer.

Monospace font support is a little poor, but I'm sure they'll fix that
up once the desire is demonstrated.

Q and X don't have small-caps variants in Unicode, so acronyms will be
banned from having a Q or an X in the middle.


Not to my mind. The 65816 processor does not have a "Branch Condition Code" instruction, so in the context of code working with the 65816 there is no reason to see "BCC" as that. There is only "BCC" as "Branch if Carry Clear", which as a long time assembler program is what I would immediately guess it means.

Edit: I can't find any assembler language where "BCC" means "Branch Condition Code". Is there such a thing?

With all such abbreviations context is important.

I don't see how it is a problem with the assembly language. The instruction mnemonics spelled out in the link above are clear and unambiguous.

I consider it a problem of mashing two conventions from two languages, Rust and assembler, into one.

Honestly in terms of looks and readability, your suggestion beats everything hands down, IMO. On the other hand, in terms of impacting typing speed especially (well before we could have expected IDE support), and also generally-available rendering support, as you mentioned, that would have been an extremely risky choice for an already difficult-to-design nascent language aiming for wide adoption.

You are correct, by all rights it should be UuId. Oh well.

Bcc for branch condition code I've seen used as a "generic" version of a conditional branch instruction (which can be BEQ, BVS, etc.). In this case the confusion is not between two specific things, but a general thing and a specific thing.

1 Like