On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:08:20AM -0700, Leslie P. Polzer wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2:30 pm, Jan Rychter <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the record, I disagree with the naming changes in > > a6239b803651. The names were carefully thought out. The > > rationale for keeping the very short accessor names was that > > these functions will always be used on an object called > > "uri-tokens" (or similar), and (all *uri-tokens*) reads more > > naturally than (all-tokens *uri-tokens*). So does (remaining > > uri-tokens). > > I've recognized this when I made the change, but I felt that short > names like that should be reserved for simple functions. > > The rename also has the advantage of fitting in with the rest of > the accessor naming in Weblocks. > > It's still debatable so it would be good to hear other people's > opinion on it.
I prefer maximum verbosity in function names, in general. This doesn't seem sufficiently exceptional to me. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
