On 6/26/2015 5:04 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 13:04:12 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
So, one option is to stay consistent with these additions, and go with
upperCaser and lowerCaser, even if those sound a bit odd.
Why not upperCaseSetter/lowerCaseSetter? Bit longer but upper case and
lower case don't have a good noun version. Personally
upperCaser/lowerCaser sound really bad to me, though I like the idea of
keeping it a noun because that matches every thing else.
I think upperCaser and lowerCaser are just fine. And I'm saying that as
someone who has been teaching English in Korea for a couple of decades
:) No, these aren't words we would normally use. But a couple of points.
1. An -er suffix is immediately recognizable in most cases as "a thing
that takes an action." Native English-speaking children and, in my
experience, non-native speakers often tack it on to verbs to create a
"doer" noun even when a different word already exists. A great example
is "cooker" to refer to a "cook". It's well-understood from that
perspective.
2. English is full of broken conventions, making it more onerous to
learn vocabulary than it ought to be. I think we should pick an
easily-understood convention that fits the usage of whatever category of
functions we're dealing with and stick with it as zealously as possible,
even if it means using words that aren't part of the language or that
don't look so pretty when they are strung together. Doing so makes it
much easier to reason at a glance about what's going on.
upperCased/lowerCased work fine for strings that have already been
transformed, but ranges that carry out the transformation are more
accurately named upperCaser/lowerCaser. IMO, that's the simplest, most
self-descriptive name these functions could have.
