Re: [PATCH 0/6] doc: replace "alice" and "bob" examples

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] 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?

quoted

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.

quoted

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 ).