Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:54:24 +0200, Max Samukha wrote: > On 02/12/2011 04:52 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:21:15 bearophile wrote: >>> Jonathan M Davis: >>>> On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>>> And that's part of what makes it best. >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>> >>> If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a public API. >> >> I'm not saying that you should typically pick function names that way. >> But given that we already have iota, have already had iota for some >> time, and that there is already a C++ function by the same name that >> does the same thing, I see no reason to change it. It's nice and >> memorable, and it doesn't create confusion based on misunderstanding >> its name. Sure, a name that clearly says what it does would be nice, >> but I don't really like any of the names that have been suggested, and >> iota has worked just fine thus far. > > Andrei's minion in me is feeling the urge to add that "iota" is also > used in Go (for generating consecutive integers at compile-time, > http://golang.org/doc/go_spec.html#Iota), and since Go is supposed to > grow popular, "iota" will gain more popularity as well.
You're just arguing against his principles: "..besides arguments ad populum are fallacious" http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php? art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=129453
