On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 21:01:39 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
http://dump.thecybershadow.net/0362443dfcca30860db907e494831b79/names.diff
So, there is some discussion about these here already:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
There seems to be varying opinion, so I'm going to formally
nominate them for renaming and get more opinions.
Rationale:
The merits of the verb-noun form ("xxxer") is that there exists
precedent (`joiner` and `splitter`), and that they do a good
job at describing what actually happens under the hood.
The downside is that they simply don't sound as good as some of
the other options when using it in the code. To reiterate on a
point from an earlier post, I think that this:
writeln(str.lowerCased.detabbed.transmogrified);
sounds better than this:
writeln(str.lowerCaser.detabber.transmogrifier);
IMO, when naming things, generally we should lean towards
representing semantics rather than mechanics (i.e. how is this
function going to be used, rather than what this function does
under the hood), as that will result in more readable code.
Anyway, this is extreme bikeshedding and I won't mind too much
leaving these alone.
Proposed new names: entabbed, detabbed,
left/right/centerJustified, soundexed. (Existing similar names:
`indexed`, `transposed`)
Well, I think that it's clear based on my previous posts that I'd
prefer that we keep the "xxxEr" scheme, particularly when you
consider that these functions are basically just wrappers around
constructors for the types that do these operations.
- Jonathan M Davis
