On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:48:26PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 3/26/15 3:28 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >Don't like the name, though. Prefer 'isOrdered', otherwise it sounds > >like some kind of sorting algorithm (as in, returns an ordered > >sequence of its arguments). > > Must be single-word name or nothing per Andrei's Hierarchy Of Naming > Abstractions (AHONA). From low-level to high-level abstractions: > > * If a realization is too simple and frequent, no abstraction should > replace it. > > * If a realization has high frequency but low complexity, it can only > be replaced by an abstraction that is one simple word with no change > of case. E.g. "among" is okay, "isAmong" is not. > > * If a realization has high frequency and high complexity, it may be > replaced by an abstraction with a multi-word name, little or no > nesting, and few or no type parameters. > > * If a realization has low frequency and high complexity, it may be > replaced by an abstraction with a multi-word name, nesting, and type > parameters. [...]
If the bar is this high, then I vote against adding this function. Writing `if (0 <= x && x < 10)` is far easier and has a clear meaning, whereas hiding it behind a poorly-named one-word abstraction actually hurts readability and therefore maintainability. IMO this falls under the first rule you listed above. T -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
