Bill Janssen wrote: > "db" and "em" are too short to be useful context-free abbreviations, There's a big difference between "db" and "em": "db" is an extremely well-known abbreviation, whereas "em" isn't. At the top level of a reorganised package namespace, I don't think it would be out of place to reserve "db" for database stuff. It can always be renamed on import if it happens to conflict with anything in code, and I wouldn't object to not being able to have my own top-level package called "db". -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiam! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4