by any other nameMon, Mar 19, 2007 dev
Gary from nh.rb was wondering why I
chose the name Ruby-HL7 instead of just HL7 (which IMO is simpler and to the point).
Originally I hadn’t put much thought into the project name, I just figured Ruby-HL7 since it
was an HL7 library for Ruby. Considering the fact that there is no other library it probably
would’ve been fine to just name it HL7. This got me considering my namespace naming choices.
HL7::Message::Segment::MSH seems a bit long to me, I’ll probably be changing that to
HL7::Segment::MSH or something even shorter. I’m wondering what others think about this
and verbose naming in general. You seem to find it a lot in Java projects,
“object.FuzzySlipperStatusCode”. Then again is saving a few keystrokes worth killing the
clarity that some of these names provide. We don’t want to go too far down the minimalist path or we’ll get acronym variable names (think “object.fssc”).