Is this really wise? Seems like some automated tool could refactor this at a compile-time stage rather than you obfuscating the names for developers.

On 21 February 2013 14:08, Robert Hanson <hansonr@stolaf.edu> wrote:
I'm about to upload a massive refactoring. Mostly the desire is to bring down the size of the JavaScript version of Jmol and has nothing to do with Java. But classes have been renamed:

ScriptVariable --> SV
Token --> T

BitSet --> BS
BitSetUtil --> BSUtil
Colix --> C
Point3f --> P3
Point3fi --> P3i
StringXBuilder --> SB
Vector3f --> V3

JmolConstants --> JC

I apologize if this is an inconvenience, but it did knock off about 10% of the JavaScript footprint for JSmol.


Bob



--
Robert M. Hanson
Larson-Anderson Professor of Chemistry
Chair, Chemistry Department
St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr


If nature does not answer first what we want,
it is better to take what answer we get.

-- Josiah Willard Gibbs, Lecture XXX, Monday, February 5, 1900


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Jmol-developers mailing list
Jmol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers