On 29/12/2008, at 11:11 PM, Damien Katz wrote:
The problem was there where other reserved fields in documents that
started with underscore, but in other places the fields wouldn't
have an underscore. Keep track of which fieldname had underscores
and where became confusing. The rule was changed to be simpler to
understand and deal with.
A simpler rule is: _rev is the name no matter where it appears, same
with _id. I'd go so far as say that this kind of rule is so
fundamental to our idea of identity and naming, that it doesn't even
count as a rule. And there had better be a really good reason to
introduce a rule contrary to such an strongly implicit and intrinsic
concept.
And as far as 'Keeping track of which fieldname had underscores", it
would seem that the current situation is the worst, because you have
to keep track not based on identity e.g. _rev and _id, but rather on
context, which is a dynamic and more intellectually demanding concept
than semantic identity. Furthermore, in this scheme, names must be
mapped under structural transformation (such as copying the _id and
_rev fields from one context to another), which complicates generic
transformations.
IMO the name isn't "rev" with sometimes an underscore, rather the name
IS "_rev". Same with "_id".
A single name for a concept, lexically consistent, is less cognitive
load both initially and on an ongoing basis.
Antony Blakey
-------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy.
-- Martin Luther King
