Closed erikedin closed 6 years ago
From the package guidelines:
Avoid jargon. In particular, avoid acronyms unless there is minimal possibility of confusion. BDD is jargon.
Err on the side of clarity, even if clarity seems long-winded to you. BDD isn't terribly clear, unless you what what BDD is.
A less systematic name may suit a package that implements one of several possible approaches to its domain. My package is definitely not the only possible approach to BDD.
Conclusion: We must rename it. Follow up question: To what?
Going to name it ExecutableSpecifications.jl. It avoid jargon, and is clear enough. It's possibly still too systematic, but I think it's a good enough name.
Should I leave the name as BDD.jl, or come up with another name?