FWIW, I agree with all of Henri's views, except that I am more +1 on the concatenate -> join change. To me, concatenate connotes a binary operation (like +), but StringUtils.concatenate is an array operation. I like join better.
Phil --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > I am always for choosing better names. > > Many of these names are my fault, as with much of StringUtils, and I'm > loving that the community part of open-source is paying off for me. > Smarter people are looking at my ideas with a different perspective and > massively improving them. Quite humbling in fact. > > > >- overlayString - shouldn't have 'String' in name. Better named as > > 'replace' > > But we already have a replace method? Unless I'm on crack, the > functionalities are quite different. Overlay takes a text and effectively > replaces based on a set of indexes, rather than replacing characters. > > +1 to removing String > -0 to replace > +0 to another name than 'overlay' > > > >- concatenate - does the name as join(array, null) so should be called > > join(array) > > > > I cannot say I am fond of the whole 'join' terminology. It seems to > > math-like for String objects (as opposed to Sets). Since strings are > 'added' > > together with '+', has 'add' been proposed? Not a great choice I know. > > > > +0 > > My only problem with join is something someone pointed out to me not long > after I accepted that 'join' was more Java than the explode/implode I'd > used elsewhere. They pointed out that Java already has a join method on > every Object. So in effect we're overloading a threading method. Kinda. > > Having join(array) makes more logical sense, but I also think that people > might be looking for a 'concat' style of function. > > +0 too. I feel people will complain, but it does seem the right choice. > > > >- getNestedString - poor name, again with String in it. > > > > 'Nested' seems wrong to me. This is just a 'substring'-type of > operation, > > how about 'substringBetween'? We already have 'substringAfter' and > > 'substringBefore', so this seems to fit just, well, just between. ;-) > > +1 to substringBetween. > > It's not sexy, but it does help to group the method nicely with the > substring collection. > > Hen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
