On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 23:12 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Or are you really saying that the number of characters determines how > > quickly/easily a brain can remember/find something like an API > > item/keyword/...? If so, and if we assume that GET, FIELD, and DECL are > > the most likely (sub-)parts of function names shouldn't it be G_F_D > > (exp) then? ;) > > The number of tokens. GET_FIELD_DECL has 2 tokens (GET and FIELD_DECL) while > exp->as_component_ref().get_field() has 3x more.
I can't derive a definition of "token" from your example that seems meaningful. It can't be parser tokens I assume, because you split GET_FIELD_DECL (but why in 2 not 3?). Same for "exp->..."; where are the 8 tokens? (Or did you in fact mean 3 times as much, so 6?). In any case, that suggests that the tokenization you had in mind is not obvious (or perhaps just not to me). Following another comment in the thread, what are the concepts you'd like to be included, and which don't you want to be included? Next step, is this actually tied to saying FOO(exp) vs. exp->foo(), or could your favorite (compression of) concepts be as well expressed with the latter?
