On Saturday 12 February 2011 07:53:34 Jérôme M. Berger wrote: > 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.
And how on earth does iota make sense in this context? I don't see how you could possibly look at iota(0, 10) or iota(2, 21, 3); and think that it _anything_ to do with its dictionary definiton (per: http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/iota ) 1: the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet — see alphabet table 2: an infinitesimal amount : jot <did not show an iota of interest> Honestly, I'd be quicker to think that it was some math term that I wasn't aware of than to think that it had _anything_ to do with its English meaning. - Jonathan M Davis