On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 03:29:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/23/2015 4:49 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
IMHO, in this case, the "Lazy" suffix is a distracting
technicality that doesn't
carry its weight. Am I the only one?
Nope. For the reasons you mentioned.
Agreed. It would be horrible to be putting Lazy on the end of all
of the lazy stuff. If we were doing all of the names from scratch
then maybe it would make sense to slap Eager on the end of the
eager ones on the theory that the lazy ones should be preferred,
but even that's pretty ugly. However, if we were doing it from
scratch, we probably wouldn't even _have_ most of the eager
functions. Regardless, let's not add Lazy to any of these
function names.
- Jonathan M Davis
