On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 16:06:33 UTC, Kelet wrote:
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,
Well put. I don't like how often I have to refer to the
documentation. And I have been trying to use D for a while. A
naming convention expressing intent should reduce the need for
frequenting the documentation. This would be a welcome addition.
Even at the cost of dusruptive change.
Joseph
