On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:26:39 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
No, you really don't.
If you're writing string code you will intuitively reach for
"substring", "contains", etc because you already know these
terms and what behaviour to expect from them. In a generic
context, or a range context you will reach for different
generic or range type names.
Trusting intuition is not acceptable. I will go and check in docs
in most case if I have not encountered it before. Check each time
for every new aliases. I'd hate to have this overhead. Right now
all I need to do is to stop thinking about strings as strings -
easy and fast.
What could have been awesome is to be able to define such
aliases via DDOC so that IDE's can understand them and list in
auto-completion, while still putting "real" name in source
code. It would have solved discoverability issue without
harming naming consistency.
I think I would dislike this.. not sure. Do our docs have
"synonyms" in function descriptions.. then at least google
would find "contains" on the page next to canFind and you would
have an answer.
They don't have it right now and I propose to introduce it for
this very reason.
