On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:18:39 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "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.
If I rename setExtension() and defaultExtension() to setExt() and defaultExt(), I feel like extension() should also be renamed to ext() for consistency's sake. I would *really* dislike that, hence my resistance to the shorter names. >>> 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 actually preferred the names from my original proposal: toAbsolute and toRelative. But someone (can't remember who) pointed out that toSomething functions by convention convert between types, and they're probably right. > I think this is one case where it's just not worthwhile to force the > "function names should be verbs" guideline. That seems to be the general consensus. I'll keep the names as they are. -Lars
