along the consistency in function naming vein:
file-name-from-path versus filename-extension. is filename 1 word or 2?
i prefer 1.
even more tangential, why isn't file-name-from-path path-filename
instead? or even basename?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:07, David T. Pierson d...@mindstory.com
Putting aside the 8 (yeah, really) ways to report errors in Haskell, this
is the option provided by the Maybe (data Maybe a = Something a | Nothing).
While I see many benefits to this approach, I think contracts may provide a
new way out. In most typed languages the major constraint seems to be
Yesterday, Andy Gocke wrote:
[...] This is especially relevant for functions like string-number
because the most obvious implementation checks validity during
parsing -- checking the validity and parsing basically duplicate the
function.
And that makes most of my point.
The thing is that
Bug report 12652 reminded me of a topic that I brought up a while back, that I
tried to incorporate into the Style Guide, and that I forgot to re-introduce
here.
Background: a lot of people think that consistency in naming,
signature/contract, and functionality (for methods and functions) is
FWIW...
* I have no strong opinion on whether it would be worthwhile, if done in
a backward-compatible way.
* If done in a *non*-backward-compatible way, it might be a headache. I
know of systems in production with millions of lines of PLT/Racket code,
and -- although PLT/Racket have been
5 matches
Mail list logo
