On 6/18/2011 2:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Okay, clearly we're not going to reach any kind of consensus on this. We seem
to be pretty thoroughly split between those who want to keep it as toStringz
and those who want to rename it to toCString. Interestingly enough, _no one_
seems to want to go with just camelcasing it to toStringZ. But regardless,
without anything close to a consensus on this, it wouldn't make any sense to
change the function's name and break all of the code that doing that would
break. So, it's going to stay toStringz.
All these renames make me uncomfortable:
1. They break existing code. Nobody likes recompiling an older piece of code and
have it gratuitously break here, there, and everywhere.
2. There is no such thing as a perfect name; bikeshed wars demonstrate this.
There ought to be a fairly high bar to renaming existing functions, not just a
debatable and marginal improvement.
