For documented public API of modules that are part of core Racket,
shouldn't pretty much all the identifiers be descriptive enough to be
unique within the scope of core Racket? (Excepting name conflicts from
SRFIs and teaching languages?)
I've now noticed generic API names like "make" and "render" in core
Racket modules written by, I think, 3 different very smart core Racket
developers. I don't understand why we're still doing this. Was it for
use with the units&signatures (which are more trouble than they're
worth, IMHO)?
For code using these APIs, for readability (since any generic names in a
module are relative to what that module is about, not the possibly many
modules that module uses), I end up using "prefix-in" on modules with
generic API names, which is still harder to read than natural identifiers.
And even if I do the "prefix-in" like "foo-lib:", with a colon on the
end, "foo-lib:make" is still harder for someone reading the code to look
up the identifier in Racket doc search, compared looking up a unique API
identifier like "make-foo" or "foo-make".
Neil V.
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
