On 24/06/15 03:05, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Well, it's true, any chosen decision is going to be a compromise.
Appending "Lazy" is only easy because the work to come up with suitable
names has already been done for the eager variants. Finding suitable
names for the lazy variants would entail doing similar work, perhaps
with a bit more effort to communicate that this version is not eager.
It's hard enough to come up with one good name, it will be even harder
to come up with a second name. Trying to come up with names indicating
one is eager and one is lazy will be almost impossible.
I'll collect some data tomorrow to see if it's possible to find a
likeable convention for lazy function names. But even if this will fail
and we'll have to settle for inconsistency, I think overall the
situation will still be better than having "Lazy" sprinkled everywhere.
It will also be consistent with the names so far (e.g. join/joiner) :)
join/joiner is almost as bad as setExtension/setExt.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
