On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 14:58:55 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 06:31:01 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 04:32:25 UTC, Andrew Godfrey
wrote:
This is a tangent from the subject of this thread, but: No,
that just says how it is implemented, not what it means /
intends. See "the 7 stages of naming", here:
http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single-step/
(That resource is talking about identifier naming, not
keywords. But it applies anyway.)
You have a point, but the name is still not 'just bonkers', all
things considered. Metonymy is justified in many cases, and I
think this is one of them. What better name would you propose?
I agree that overloading keywords in different contexts in
problematic. I think every newbie is surprised when he stumbled
across the two different usages of enum (finite, custom lists &
CT evaluation), but let's focus on the future. Something that's
worrying me a bit, is that we don't have a clear naming
convention for Phobos.
There is a good wiki entry that shows the problem [1].
Basically an intuitive name should follow a standard convention,
s.t. you can "guess" it and the name can also tell more
information, e.g. is it a lazy operation? (aka returns a range).
`split` and `splitter` are good examples, but then in other
module you might find (1) adjectives: `transposed`, `indexed` (2)
prepositions: byUTF, or (3) just nouns: setUnion,
cartesianProduct, permutations, recurrence.
Disclaimer: This is just a friendly reminder that names are
important and as they are very hard to change, great care should
be put on choosing them in the future ;-)
[1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Naming_conventions
