"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Folks, please state your preferences in terms of function names. I'll > try to put personal bias aside and compose a naming scheme that is both > internally consistent and consistent with the majority opinion. >
I'm happy either way with Sep/Ext or Separator/Extension. I guess my preference would be for the shorter versions. They're perfectly clear (who isn't familiar with the "ext" abbreviation for "extension"?) and they're easier to spell. And one-line file/path manipulations are less likely to grow too far past the 80-char mark. But if we kept the long ones, I wouldn't complain. > >> and also with regards to making non-property functions verbs (e.g. >> absolutePath and relativePath). > > I'd be happy to change it, but I'm at loss for good alternatives. I seem > to remember you suggesting makeAbsolute and makeRelative, but not being > 100% happy with them yourself. Any other suggestions? > I agree with "function names should be verbs" as a general guideline, but I don't think it should be taken so strictly that it gets forced on in situations (like this one) where it just doesn't work quite as well. Despite not being verbs, "absolutePath/relativePath" are perfectly clear and much more descriptive than "makeAbsolute/makeRelative" (Make an absolute or relative what?). And then "makeAbsolutePath/makeRelativePath" is just starting to get verbose. I think this is one case where it's just not worthwhile to force the "function names should be verbs" guideline. > > I'm slowly coming around to the idea of including the dot. Unless I hear > any loud protests I will probably do so. > Sounds good to me.
