On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Mike via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > > Sounds good? >> > > Yes, please note that although I suggested a `Lazy` suffix, I don't want > it to be a convention. It should only be used as a disambiguator when > ambiguity arises. > This would make it a convention. And a poor one, as it basically says 'do your own thing, but if you do something confusing stick lazy on the end.' Better in my opinion to have a convention that covers things in the first place, so you never get to the point where differentiating via 'lazy' seems like a good idea. I actually don't think having separate threads for each name is the best solution. May be better to get them all listed in one place, and see if a consistent naming system can emerge.
