I don't have time to properly respond, but I'm pretty sure no one on this team is using single letter variables to save keystrokes. Is is a good point that abbreviations may be more common in one area than another. I find both ctx and txn to be completely self explanatory even with zero context (heh). <div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 26, 2013 8:33 PM, "Julian Edwards" <<a href="mailto:julian.edwards@canonical.com">julian.edwards@canonical.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 27/08/13 09:26, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > Traditionally I've also avoided abbreviated names (preferring context > over ctx, transaction over tx/txn). I'm not 100% convinced that this is > necessary, though, in these cases where there's a *conventional* and > obvious abbreviation. I mean, ctx is pretty obvious. "c" not so much > (though I use "c" a *lot* in llgo to shorten "compiler"; not great, but > at least I'm pretty consistent about it, so it's a project-specific > convention). YMMV. 狢 find "txn" far more obvious than "ctx". Talking of "c", I was astounded the first time I found a struct called "C" being used in juju tests. > Minimising cognitive overhead is more important than saving a few keystrokes. I believe this is exactly what Tim is trying to say :) -- Juju-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com">Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev</a> </blockquote></div>