> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again.
I wouldn't necessarily call "GlobalScopeForWorker" more clunky than "WorkerGlobalScope", just a bit longer, but also more descriptive.
Using the languages namespacing features might also make it more obvious, e.g. "Worker::GlobalScope" and "Worklet::GlobalScope" or the inverted version "GlobalScope::{Worker,Worklet}".
Looking at it from a functional programming perspective, I also like approaches of the form "GlobalScopeFor({Worker,Worklet})", i.e. a function returning the respective thing.
Naming things is hard, but the possibilities are endless...
„Of” is underused in programming. It’s short, can appear standalone, as prefix, infix and suffix and it’s generic enough that it works in most contexts for types, type functions, functions, constructors, mappings etc.
I wouldn't necessarily call "GlobalScopeForWorker" more clunky than "WorkerGlobalScope", just a bit longer, but also more descriptive.
Using the languages namespacing features might also make it more obvious, e.g. "Worker::GlobalScope" and "Worklet::GlobalScope" or the inverted version "GlobalScope::{Worker,Worklet}".
Looking at it from a functional programming perspective, I also like approaches of the form "GlobalScopeFor({Worker,Worklet})", i.e. a function returning the respective thing.
Naming things is hard, but the possibilities are endless...