Iterators are just structs which implement the "Iterator" or a related trait, right?
These structs which do can also implement lots of other traits, too: no reason to make -Iter special. Kevin On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Palmer Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not a big fan of Hungarian notation either. I'm not sure that having a > naming convention for Iterators is Hungarian notation, however. For example, > if you are doing Windows programming, you'll see stuff like: > > DWORD dwFoo = 0; > > In this case, the "dw" prefix on the variable indicates that we have a DWORD > variable. However, the Iterator suffix that I'm proposing here is a suffix > on the type names, not the actual variable names. So, if you are writing > Rust code, you'd write something like this: > > let chunks = some_vector.chunks(50); > > So, the actual variable name doesn't have the Hungarian notation and the > types aren't even generally visible since the compiler infers much of that. > However, someone reading through the documentation and/or code will see a > struct named ChunkIterator and instance know how the struct behaves - as an > Iterator. So, I think the suffix serves less to describe the datatype and > more to describe class of behavior that the struct implements. > > Anyway, as I said, I prefer #1. But, I also have done lots of Java > programming so I'm probably much more used to verbosity than others. I'm not > horribly against some sort of other naming convention, either, of course, > but I would like to see some consistency. > > My main motivation for opening the request was because I created > MutChunkIter and then realized that it was named differently than majority > of other Iterators. I don't want to be responsible for someone reading > through the docs and seeing something thats inconsistent for no good reason! > Also, I was reading through some code and happened upon a "Map" and was > exceptionally confused about it, until I realized it was iter::Map as > opposed to container::Map. I figured I probably wasn't the only person that > was going to be confused by something like this. > > -Palmer Cox > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Cantu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> IMHO Hungarian notation is for things the type system and tooling >> cannot deal with. I'm not sure this is one of them... >> >> >> Kevin > > _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
