Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Neil Conway wrote: > >> Tom objected to changing the names: > > > I agree a renaming of list functions is good. If we had kept the > > original Berkeley code as-is, we would have a lot fewer developers > > today. :-) Making drastic cleanups is often worthwile. > > I would be satisfied if we kept the names of the core, > most-commonly-used functions the same. I would put lfirst, lnext, > lcons, lappend, length, maybe member into the category of names > I don't want to change. Attaching "_int" and "_oid" to those for the > related functions is okay. > > If we go in that direction then the common prefix would be just "l" > and not "list_", which seems a good idea to me on grounds of brevity. > Looking over Neil's proposal again, one of the things that bugged me > about it was that the function names were overly verbose. That's okay > for stuff you don't see often, but the common list functions are *all > over* the backend. You can't really claim that developers will be > unfamiliar with them. Making those names longer won't buy us anything > except sooner onset of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Agreed. Sounds like a plan. What does the 'n' stand for in ncons? I also felt that lcons (construct) and nconc(concat) were too similarly named. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
