You claim there is an argument. But you don't actually state your argument.

My claim is that you think there is an argument, but there really isn't. That function name can do no real damage to the clarity or structure of the code. You only wish to shorten it because of OCD.

The logic here is easily illustrated if I rewrote that function name in English:

If my goal was to communicate this to you:

A function that finds the x y coordinates of dogs cats and baboons in a picture.

This is perfectly ok, but only because it's english. If I tried to write the English as if it was a function.

func xy_babboon_cat_dog_detector

The above doesn't fly in the English language. But it only works in programming. This is contradictory logic.

The question is, if both programming and English are both mediums used for communication why do they both have contradictory styles?

The reason is because there is no reason behind it. It's the same reason why people in Japan still use fax machines. Habit and typical human irrationality.

When you peel away the layers of your bias you will realize that this contradiction exists because the level of verbosity of my function doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter in English, and therefore it doesn't really matter in programming.

Seriously, didn't you find it strange that you made your point without even stating what your argument was? Typically if you had a clear reason you would give it, if you had examples you would show it, instead you just said an argument existed probably never realizing what that argument actually was.

It's not just you. The other commentor just reiterated some points without trying to prove any argument. English has a preferred communication style that is contradictory to the preferred programming communication style even though both mediums can go back and forth between either style without any clear difference.

If you self reflect about it, your desire to make my function concise arises more from a feeling and a "emotion." You did not logically deduce your point using evidence... rather you just felt that it needed shortening and that it looks "ugly."

Then when I questioned that logic, your mind, without realizing it, began building a logical scaffold around the feeling to support the desire with some rational framework. Such is human nature, and this type of thing happens for all kinds of strange human biases that we posses. Religion, no doubt, is a similar bias... when questioned the religious persons' brain will go through the exact same process that your brain did upon seeing that ugly wordy function name.

The question is, by going meta and describing the situation in this way would that help you take a step up above that bias? Or will you continue to build that logical scaffold and try to justify your strange desire to make the function more concise for no reason?

Think about this before you reply... did you already honestly have an argument that justified your point? or are you building one right now to respond to me?

This is literally as close as I can get to what I'm talking about. There's this strange bias that every human (including me) has when they first learn programming to write concise "elegant" names for no real purpose. It's so strong that sometimes a normal argument can't help the other party reach an epiphany. Hopefully by going meta I can help better illustrate what I'm referring to.