On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 23:58:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 23:49:45 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
- Ultimately, we want to encourage use of the lazy versions,
in the same way that e.g. std.algorithm and std.range are
encouraged over eager operations for arrays.
Another point: the range-ification of Phobos is only going to
continue. This means that, should this scheme be followed, the
number of functions with "Lazy" in the same is only going to
grow, and as these functions are intended to become the
canonical way to write modern D, so will the number of
occurrences of "Lazy" in a typical canonical D program. I think
this is a strong argument for avoiding "Lazy", at least for
functions which intend to displace their eager counterparts.
But now you are going to have to come up with a clever name for
every replacement and the clarity of each will be shoty at best.
The append lazy convention at least is a convention that is very
clear, the other way has no rules, you just are making up new
names.
