Exactly - while I do understand the pre-2000s rationale for smaller field sizes, this is one of the 'compromises' that boggles my mind.
Composite family names ('Tessier-Ashpool') suffer a similar fate, operators picking one part at random.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Exactly - while I do understand the pre-2000s rationale for smaller field sizes, this is one of the 'compromises' that boggles my mind.
Composite family names ('Tessier-Ashpool') suffer a similar fate, operators picking one part at random.