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
pgpbyAoHMFXfl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
