On 22/06/2015 7:17 p.m., Mike wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, and
toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same functionality, but
one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. Can you guess which is
which?
Yikes! That should have never passed scrutiny in the pull request. I'm
sorry I didn't see it, as I would have voiced opposition to it. I only
just started monitoring Phobos this week. My work doesn't really
require me to use Phobos much.
It would be unfortunate if we were to have such warts in D, so I think
we should at least not outright reject PRs which fix them.
I totally agree. I was really excited about D a year and a half ago,
and what really lit my fire was Andrei's talk about "Operational
Professionalism" at DConf 2013. At that time, I thought, "Wow, this
community really cares about getting things right". How naive of me :)
But, I'm still here...perhaps foolishly.
It makes me disappointed to see contributions that dot the 'i's and
cross the 't's get turned away and belittled. But, I don't think
there's anything I can do about it, and although you've made an
excellent argument, I've gathered enough wisdom in my time here to make
a reasonable prediction of the outcome. I also believe the relatively
little response you've received in this thread is likely not an
indication that few care, or that few support your argument, but rather
that they've seen it before, and they know how it ends.
Mike
I haven't commented yet but you have half hit a nerve for me.
Okay so, I'm in agreement about the point being made 100%.
But there isn't really anything I can _do_ about it.
I don't really review Phobos PR's.
Just a thought, add a checklist to CONTRIBUTING.md on Github and have
this as one of them for function/method names.
It probably just slipped peoples minds. Problem solved.
