On 7/18/2014 2:14 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
It's kind of weird that you'd say that because you seem to be pretty strongly
opinionated about the naming.
It's not just this one, it comes up again and again, always spawning long
debates, and accomplishing next to nothing.
I find these interminable naming threads to be frustrating and an impediment
to progress on issues with Phobos that actually matter, like making Phobos
usable for people who don't want to use the GC.
The idea of creating this thread was to address the one remaining problem
There is no solution, there is just more discussion and more debate, and useful
work is not getting done.
and
get your stalled pull request merged. It seemed appropriate to bring up the
issue since your pull request is the prototype for the effort and is something
every other lazifying pull request will have to consider. I wanted to make it so
we wouldn't have to bicker about naming with every pull request that comes in by
trying to head off that problem at the pass.
A naming convention implies a mass renaming of existing lazy algorithms - or it
is not a convention at all.
Lazy algorithms are not a new invention in Phobos. They've been there since the
beginning of range use. setExt is not a prototype for lazy ranges, we already
have them in plenty. It's a prototype for removing storage allocation from
Phobos functions, making them more composable, etc.
My bias is to give strong preference in names to the choice of the person who
actually wrote the code in question.
That's really no way to write a standard library. The naming should be just as
open to review as the implementation. People care a bit too much about naming
but caring too little is also a problem. Intuitive naming is a valuable thing to
have. Nobody wants to be constantly looking up function names because it's just
a roll of the dice how the name ended up.
Whether "setExtension" or "withExtension" is more intuitive is caring too much.
Calling it "sdjfhalkjshdfjh" is caring too little.
