On Friday, November 11, 2011 03:17:10 Jesse Phillips wrote: > > I also have some API design concerns. Primarily, most of the type names > > are overly broad and unclear. For example: Record, Records, Malformed > > could just as easily be part of a database API. And because of this, not > > only does one reading the code not know what the object is, but if > > namespace conflicts can occur, then code reviewers will probably make > > the wrong assumption half the time as to what Record is and not bother > > looking it up. > > The reason it is name like what you would find in a database, is because > they are the same thing. It is a row of data. In past discussion about > existing name clashes it was concluded that was what modules, static, and > named imports wore for.
Actually, I'd argue that Row would be better than Record, since it _is_ a row in a table. Personally, I'd find it to be more immediately clear that way. With Record, I have to figure out what the heck it is a record of, whereas Row is immediately obvious in this context. - Jonathan M Davis
