"IX" as shorthand for "Interface"

[Eric Snow]

I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? Thanks!

-eric

[Chris Rebert]

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). ?Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? ?Thanks!

But classes and interfaces are distinct concepts...

- Chris

[Eric Snow]

Post by Chris Rebert

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). ?Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? ?Thanks!

But classes and interfaces are distinct concepts...
- Chris

I saw what you did right there! <wink> Be that as it may, is "IX" a
common enough abbreviation?

-eric

[Roy Smith]

In article <mailman.1845.1318135749.27778.python-list at python.org>,

Post by Eric Snow
I saw what you did right there! <wink> Be that as it may, is "IX" a
common enough abbreviation?

I would not recognize it at first glance. If anything, I think of X as
standing for experience (UI -- User Interface, UX -- User Experience).
But, if it's a big package and you adopt a uniform naming convention, it
shouldn't be a problem. Especially if you have some kind of README that
describes what conventions you are using.

Or you could use I7E :-)

[Peter Otten]

Post by Roy Smith
In article <mailman.1845.1318135749.27778.python-list at python.org>,

Post by Eric Snow
I saw what you did right there! <wink> Be that as it may, is "IX" a
common enough abbreviation?

What Roy really wanted to say:

I w3d n1t r7e it at f3t g4e. If a6g, I t3k of X as s6g f1r e8e (UI -- U2r
I7e, UX -- U2r E8e). B1t, if it's a b1g p5e a1d y1u a3t a u5m n4g c8n, it
s5n't be a p5m. E8y if y1u h2e s2e k2d of R4E t2t d7s w2t c9s y1u a1e u3g.

;)

[Ben Finney]

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? Thanks!

Convention in which community?

If you just mean in general programming community, I don't think ?IX?
would suggest interface at all.

The only common convention I've seen is the ?I? prefix: ?IFoo? to
suggest ?the Foo interface?. But that's hopelessly ambiguous, and I
don't recommend it.

[Steven D'Aprano]

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? Thanks!

I've never seen or heard of "IX" as an abbreviation for Interface. Apart
from the fact that they both start with I, what is the connection? Is the
fact that "IX" is pronounced Icks meant as commentary about Interfaces
perhaps?

[Nobody]

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? Thanks!

I've only ever seen "ix" used as an abbreviation for "index".

The common abbrevations for "interface" are "if" (e.g. the Linux
networking headers), "iface", or the "I" prefix in Windows' COM.

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:21:02 -0600

Post by Eric Snow
I'm writing a bunch of classes that have "Interface" in the name and
find that the length of the subsequent names is starting to get in the
way of readability (I don't really care about saving keystrokes). Is
"IX" conventional enough to use in place of "Interface" in a class
name? Thanks!

Here's a suggestion based on my complete ignorance of you application
so take it for what it is worth. If keystrokes don't matter to you
consider this.

class INTERFACE:
pass

class Something(INTERFACE):
...

It isn't in the name but the definition is clearly an
"INTERFACE" (whatever that is) and you also have the option of
gathering things in common to INTERFACEs in the superclass.