On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 11:13:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
walkLength is a really good name. Clear, concise, to the point. It's not often that you can make such a short name that explains the behaviour so well.
Actually it isn't a good abstraction as it exposes implementation internals.
The name should indicate what you get (the calculating of a result), not how the framework obtains it (sequential scan).
"walk" indicates that you can use a visitor-pattern, thus it is a misleading name.
(Not that it matters.)
