On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 22:07:04 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2013-02-26 21:13, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Really? There are a few (particularly older ones), but for the most part, > > I'd argue that that's not the case at all. In general, IMHO, Phobos does > > an excellent job of having function names that are reasonably descriptive > > and are of a reasonable length. And, if anything, we tend to err on the > > side of being too long (e.g. ElementEncodingType). > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > These are just a couple: > > std.string > icmp > makeTrans > succ > abbrev > > std.array > assocArray > > std.file > isDir > attrIsDir > attrIsFile > attrIsSymlink > dirEntries > > std.uni > lineSep > paraSep > > std.datetime > currTime > Every member of the Month, DayOfWeek and Direction enums. > fracSec
And in almost all cases, I see nothing to complain about here. Most of them are quite clear as they are. Making them longer would just make them longer to no real benefit IMHO, and it _would_ be adding a cost. You seem to think that abbreviations are bad, and I completely disagree. IMHO, a symbol name should be as long as it needs to be in order to be clear and no longer, and as long as an abbreviation is clear, then it's great to use it. But if you have problems with most of those names, then I think that it's pretty clear that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, because for the most part, I think that they're great as they are. - Jonathan M Davis
