On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:16:49 -0800, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: > One option is to just drop the "move_ " prefix. Then everything will be > a two-word function. So the new proposal is: > > to_first > has_current > to_next > > to_last > has_current > to_previous > > get_current > > Better?
Looking back at this proposal now, (after a long delay), I found I didn't like it at all. With function names like: notmuch_threads_to_first notmuch_threads_to_next the missing verb in the name is really distracting. I ended up reading these names as if they were conversion functions. So I've gone back to preferring the names with the explicit verbs (even though quite long): notmuch_threads_move_to_first notmuch_threads_move_to_next Meanwhile, I also decided that _current wasn't adding anything to the names it showed up in, (we can never "get" anything other than the current item, so why qualify as "get_current"?). So I'm changing from "has_current" to "valid", and leaving "get" as it is. So the final proposal for iteration in either direction is: move_to_first valid move_to_next move_to_last valid move_to_previous get I've just pushed commits changing the existing functions (which allow only forward iteration) to use this naming scheme. I haven't added any of the reverse-iteration functions yet, so Ruben, if you'd like to do those within this scheme, that would be find. (Or we could wait until we have an actual use in mind for them.) Thanks, -Carl
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch