On 02/12/2011 02:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 6:52 AM, spir wrote:
On 02/12/2011 12:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value
muddles that
abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has
nearly no
relation with its purpose in Phobos.
And that's part of what makes it best.
What about a random name generator to define a language.stdlib's
lexicon? Then run a post-filter fed by user complaints about given names
actually suggesting some relation to any [part|aspect] of their sense.
denis
What I meant was that "iota" is not confusable with other concepts in Phobos,
while at the same time being evocative for the task at hand. Another evocative
term would be "quanta", but somehow I suspect that will enjoy little traction.
:o)
Sorry for the somewhat humourous (?) reply above. Your statement shocked me a
bit (quite the opposite of what i think is good in design --for public use).
Now, I very much agree that <"iota" is not confusable with other concepts in
Phobos> is a very good property.
And to clore my participation to this debate: I would not mind "iota" to
remain, anyway not everyday use feature. But I think it's good we have
discussed this point at length, for other features, present & future. "On the
importance of proper naming." (for others' benefit)
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
