Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have not read cryptography documentation, so for me Alice and Bob are > simply two illustrative colleagues. I have read cryptography documentation and seen Alice and Bob used commonly. Am I supposed to be confused if I see those names used in documentation for non cryptographic software? If Alice and Bob work there, why should they not be used here? Am I missing something? >> And as argued in 1/6 for those users who /are/ aware of "Alice and Bob" >> it's needless distraction. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I read >> references to them I keep waiting for the cryptography angle to be >> introduced. None of the uses in our documentation reflect that canonical >> usage. > > It's probably not just you, but the vast majority of readers are > likely not aware of any cryptographic reference. I find it surprising that anyone would be upset that the names Alice and Bob were being used in a non cryptographic context. >> There's also just weird things in our documentation fixed by this >> series, such as referring to a random file tracked by git as "bob" >> instead of the more obvious "file.txt". > > OK, _that_ I agree it's unequivocally an improvement. Yea, a file probably shouldn't be called bob... I would probably have gone with "foo.txt" ( but file.txt is just fine too ).
