Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday 12 February 2011 02:33:12 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> On 02/11/2011 11:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> If anyone tried to use iota to actually mean something as a variable
>>> or function name, I'd be suggesting that they pick a better nam.
>> So you're saying you don't like Andrei's chosen name? ;)
>
> No. Andrei isn't trying to use the word based on its actual meaning. As it
> stands, the name is essentially nonsensical. That means that it's a vey poor
> name from the standpoint of figuring out what the function does based on its
> name.
>
> _However_, precisely because it's such a short and nonsensical name, it's
> really
> easy to remember. I'm fine with keeping it as is. If someone could come up
> with a
> perfect replacement, then that woludn't be too bad, but honestly, I think
> that
> most of the names suggested actually increase the confusion.
>
> With iota, you don't have a clue what it does based on its name, so you look
> it
> up. Then you remember it, because it's very memborable. With something like
> walk
> or interval, the name gives you a better idea of what it does, but it's
> _still_
> not good enough for you to know based on the name and, since they mean
> something
> closer to what the function actually does but not quite, they risk misleading
> you as to what the function does. At least with iota, you know that you're
> going
> to have to look it up.
>
> There's already precedent for iota as Andrei has stated, and it's been in
> std.algorithm for a while, so I'm fine with leaving it as is. It's a highly
> memborable name, and it's nice and short to boot.
>
The problem is that “iota” *does* make sense, but it is used in a
way quite different from its meaning. So when you see it you do not
look it up, but instead assume that you know what it means and do
not understand how the code you are looking at works.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
