Meaningful Names¶

Use names that communicate domain meaning, role, and units.

Canonical interpretation¶

A name should help a reader understand what a value or operation represents without decoding implementation history.

Purpose¶

Use names that communicate domain meaning, role, and units.

Apply when¶

The code must be understood and changed by people other than its author.
A simpler implementation satisfies the current verified requirements.

This does not mean¶

Do not make names long merely to restate the type.
Do not use domain terminology inconsistently.

Trade-offs¶

Local simplicity can conflict with extensibility, reuse, or performance requirements.
Reducing visible code can increase hidden behavior; clarity is more important than terseness.

Conflicts with canonical entries¶

None recorded.

Broader policy tensions¶

local-conventions

Reinforces canonical entries¶

principle-of-least-astonishment
self-documenting-code

Supports broader concerns¶

None recorded.

Core Skill ownership¶

Primary owner: code-clarity

Positive example¶

Name a duration retryDelayMilliseconds when the unit matters.

Counterexample¶

Name important values data, tmp, or manager without a specific role.

Guidance for AI models¶

Apply this guidance only after considering the active project profile, constraints, and architecture authority.
State the concrete design consequence instead of citing the principle name as sufficient justification.

Editorial note¶

This page is generated from the canonical YAML entry. Edit principles/entries/meaningful-names.yaml and regenerate the compendium instead of editing this file directly.