On 2009-04-13 03:56:11 -0400, Rainer Deyke <rain...@eldwood.com> said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Which makes me think of one thing: why "isBounded" instead of plain and
simple "bounded"? Ranges don't respond to "isEmpty": they have "empty"
instead.
"bounded(x)" can be read as a predicate ("Is x bounded?"), an assertion
("x is bounded, so treat it as such.") or even a conversion (although I
admit that I can think of a meaningful way to convert an unbounded
sequence into a bounded sequence). "isBounded(x)" is unambiguous.
I disagree. How adding the "is" it disambiguate between the predicate
and the assertion? "x.isBounded" reads more like "x is bounded" (the
assertion) than "is x bounded" (the predicate).
* * *
Assuming the "is" form is less ambiguous for bounded, the same could be
said about "empty". In fact, not putting "is" in front of "emtpy" is
even worse since "empty" can also be a verb.
Predicate: "Is x empty?";
Assertion: "x is empty";
Verb: "empty x".
Anyway, more than advocating for or against the "is" prefix, I mostly
want things to be coherent. If you use "is" for bounded, you should use
"is" for empty too. That's why I'm suggesting there is a section about
choosing names in Phobos' Naming Conventions.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
