Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > With zip/unzip/partition
>
> I really gotta say, those functions *need* to be renamed, for a variety
> of reasons. First, they have well-established computer meanings
> (compression, disks). Second, "partition" is too long anyways.
>
> I've seen numerous emails from other people saying the same thing. If
> other languages name these functions zip/unzip I'd argue they're wrong.
> "mop", "cleave", "weave", "mix", or any other term that doesn't already
> have well-established computer meaning is acceptable.
>
> Jeremy, in the next version of the RFC's would you be willing to suggest
> some alternatives?
Yes, of course! I do read every message posted regarding the RFCs I'm
maintaining, and in the 2nd version I will incorporate the suggestions that
are made. Where the community hasn't reached consensus, I'll propose a
solution I think is appropriate (based on the on-list debate), and include a
discussion section mentioning other options--after all, in the end it's up
to Larry to decide, and my view is that my role as an RFC maintainer is to
summarise the combined wisdom of the Perl community to help him do that.
In this case, I've got no particular feeling of ownership over the function
naming I proposed--I just stole them from the names of the same functions in
widely used functional languages. Personally, I like 'weave' rather than
'zip'. I'm happy with 'unweave' too--although I'm still unsure about that
one...
BTW, I've seen no discussion of RFC 82 (Make operators behave consistently
in a list context), so I'm not sure what to do with it... Is that because
everyone thinks it's great, or that it's stupid, or just that no-one's got
any idea what I'm trying to say?
