4 ms·
It would seem reasonable to me to use the latinized form of the Chinese word as part of the identifier instead of the awful descriptive identifier.
by jhgb 5y ago
It would seem reasonable to me to use the latinized form of the Chinese word as part of the identifier instead of the awful descriptive identifier.
- dqpb 5y agoI would like you to figure out what that would be and post it here.
- zzzbra 5y agothink about what you’ve just said
- carnitine 5y agoIf you’re suggesting the current identifier is already latinised, it’s not, it’s translated.
- jhgb 5y agoI've basically just said that, e.g., instead of the identifier EmployeeTheNumberThatIdentifiesATupleInARelation, you should really be using the identifier EmployeePrimaryKey. That is, you usually refer to things using the name of the respective concept, not by describing what the thing's concept is every time you're trying to refer to the thing. It's called "coining a term". Or, in programming, abstraction (as per SICP, that is giving a name to some compound construct so as not to be forced to repeat it endlessly).
- robjan 5y agoIt's not specific to one Chinese Language or even just Chinese.
- jhgb 5y agoSurely it has a more generic name, then.
- wongarsu 5y agoI honestly don't know if I would prefer CNLabelContactRelationYoungerCousinMothersSiblingsDaughterOrFathersSistersDaughter or CNLabelContactRelationBiǎoMèi (is unicode even allowed?). And I probably butchered that romanization and upset half the internet in the process.
- jerrre 5y agoIf unicode is allowed, you can also use the Chinese characters
- wongarsu 5y agoThen about 80% of the world wouldn't know how to pronounce it. A quick test in google would suggest that CNLabelContactRelationBiaoMei doesn't introduce too much ambiguity (first result for Biao Mei is still about the correct term), so even without unicode it might be fine.