On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 10:19:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Do we really want to be naming functions which aren't
properties with adjectives instead of verbs?
Yes. We have parens for denoting functions.
Oh wait.
Do we really want to be naming functions which aren't
properties with adjectives instead of verbs? That seems very
wrong to me. I'd much rather see stuff like setExt or
setExtLazy than withExtension or extensionSet. Function names
are supposed to be verbs unless they're emulating variables.
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 20:35:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, Tourist wrote:
Are you planning to deprecate the non-lazy functions at some
(maybe very
distant) point?
No. Phobos has already gone through multiple rounds of
renaming/deprecation, all at considerable
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 00:05:55 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
To summarize what I think are the best ideas so far:
std.string
--
EagerLazy
-
capitalize capitalized
center centered
detabdetabbed
entab
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 00:05:55 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
To summarize what I think are the best ideas so far:
std.string
--
EagerLazy
-
capitalize capitalized
center centered
detabdetabbed
entab
On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 00:05:55 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
To summarize what I think are the best ideas so far:
std.string
--
EagerLazy
-
capitalize capitalized
center centered
detabdetabbed
entab
19-Jul-2014 04:05, Brad Anderson пишет:
To summarize what I think are the best ideas so far:
std.string
--
EagerLazy
-
capitalize capitalized
center centered
detabdetabbed
entabentabbed
format
On 7/17/2014 3:59 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Walter's prototype[1] for removing allocations from a phobos function
(std.path.setExtension) got hung up on the naming of the function. It couldn't
keep the same name because it differed only by return type.
Walter doesn't like explicitly naming them
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 08:48:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
Since there are a lot of existing lazy algorithms in Phobos
that do not follow this naming convention, either the
convention is pointless or we go through yet another round of
changing Phobos names and breaking everyone's
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 17:59:05 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
- abbrev : abbreviated: withAbbrev
abbrev actually doesn't belong in this list. I probably included
a few others mistakenly too.
On 07/18/2014 10:59 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
maybe use the past participle on the ones with verbs.
I vote 100% for past participle, 20% for with.
- abbrev : abbreviated: withAbbrev
Haha! We can't keep it abbreviated anymore though. Wait, what? :p
- removechars:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:59:03PM +, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
Yeah, I agree. I'd hate having a with prefix on everything.
Yeah, with doesn't fit everywhere, only in some places. I think
withExtension (or withExt) is a very good choice of name. It may
apply to a few other
On 7/18/2014 10:59 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
What do you think?
I'd leaven that proposal with the observation that functions are likely to be
lexically sorted by name. Hence, like functions should lexicographically be
adjacent to each other.
setExtension and withExtension will be widely
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 17:59:05 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 08:48:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
Since there are a lot of existing lazy algorithms in Phobos
that do not follow this naming convention, either the
convention is pointless or we go through yet
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 22:59:27 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Walter's prototype[1] for removing allocations from a phobos
function (std.path.setExtension) got hung up on the naming of
the function. It couldn't keep the same name because it
differed only by return type.
Walter doesn't like
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 18:49:13 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I think it's a fool's errand to try to invent a single system
of naming
that's blindly applied across the board. We should have some
guiding
principles for common cases (like withXxx, xxxOf, verbed,
etc.)
for
On 7/18/2014 12:40 PM, Tourist wrote:
Are you planning to deprecate the non-lazy functions at some (maybe very
distant) point?
No. Phobos has already gone through multiple rounds of renaming/deprecation, all
at considerable disruption. Each one was supposed to be worth it and the last
time.
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 19:00:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/18/2014 10:59 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
What do you think?
I'd leaven that proposal with the observation that functions
are likely to be lexically sorted by name. Hence, like
functions should lexicographically be adjacent to
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 20:35:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
General comment (not particularly directed at Tourist):
There is no such thing as the perfect set of names and the
perfect naming convention. These discussions about which of
car, auto, vehicle is more intuitive give the illusion
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 09:14:44PM +, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 20:35:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
I find these interminable naming threads to be frustrating and an
impediment to progress on issues with Phobos that actually matter,
like making
On 7/18/2014 2:14 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
It's kind of weird that you'd say that because you seem to be pretty strongly
opinionated about the naming.
It's not just this one, it comes up again and again, always spawning long
debates, and accomplishing next to nothing.
I find these
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 22:37:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/18/2014 2:14 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
It's kind of weird that you'd say that because you seem to be
pretty strongly
opinionated about the naming.
It's not just this one, it comes up again and again, always
spawning long
To summarize what I think are the best ideas so far:
std.string
--
EagerLazy
-
capitalize capitalized
center centered
detabdetabbed
entabentabbed
format formatted
leftJustify
On 07/18/2014 09:23 PM, Meta wrote:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 17:59:05 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 08:48:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
Since there are a lot of existing lazy algorithms in Phobos that do
not follow this naming convention, either the convention is
Walter's prototype[1] for removing allocations from a phobos
function (std.path.setExtension) got hung up on the naming of the
function. It couldn't keep the same name because it differed only
by return type.
Walter doesn't like explicitly naming them as lazy because
existing lazy functions
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:59:26PM +, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I find the with prefix particularly attractive. It implies the lazy
behavior, is short, and reads well when chained with other calls.
Hypothetical example I gave in the Pull Request comments:
auto
26 matches
Mail list logo
