I agree with Vladimir --
There should be a naming convention for identifying whether a
function is eager or lazy. Learning a naming convention once and
applying it repeatedly is a better process than repeatedly
referencing documentation.
A programming language should have built-in functionality that is
named in such a way that it clearly expresses its intent. For
newbies, it can be very off-putting to be introduced to a
language where this is not the case. Perhaps some veterans of the
D language can't clearly see this.
There is no good reason that the new introduction of built-ins
should not follow a well-defined naming scheme. I'd actually go a
bit further and deprecate old functions that do not meet the
scheme and phase them out over time.
Bikeshedding is arguing over trivial naming schemes. Choosing to
adhere to a naming scheme is not bikeshedding, IMHO.
Thanks,
