On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 14:58:55 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 06:31:01 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 04:32:25 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
This is a tangent from the subject of this thread, but: No,
that just says how it is implemented, not what it means /
intends. See "the 7 stages of naming", here:
http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single-step/
(That resource is talking about identifier naming, not
keywords. But it applies anyway.)
You have a point, but the name is still not 'just bonkers', all
things considered. Metonymy is justified in many cases, and I
think this is one of them. What better name would you propose?
