> Metonymy has a purpose when it replaces a long, exactingly precise description with a short term that is equally recognizable So... not here? ("Standard libr

> Metonymy has a purpose when it replaces a long, exactingly precise description with a short term that is equally recognizable So... not here? ("Standard library" and "STL" are about the same number of syllables). I still think metonymy is a bit besides the point. The explanation "Using STL in place of the standard library is a perfectly valid use of metonymy, which is a type of rhetorical device, which is typically avoided in formal writing - therefore you should not do this" seems coherent to me. That is - being a "perfectly valid use of metonymy" is neither clearly an argument for not clearly an argument against the use of term.