On 3 September 2012 16:45, Javier Pimás <elpochodelage...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here we use a convention of naming 0 based accessors with atOffset: and > atOffset:put:. If applicable, this could be a good tradeoff. Of course, the > arguments are simple integers, but the 0 index gets explicit by the > selector. >
mmm.. this is more explicit, i agree, but then all selector names will get longer. In our case we're talking about bunch of selectors where first keyword denotes a type: nbFloat32At: nbFloat64At: nbInt16At: .... nbUInt32At: ... etc for me it is not a problem, since 'nb' prefix kinda already says something , like 'watch it, you entering different domain here'.. And , of course renaming 'index' to 'offset' for argument names will also can serve for clarity.. (sure thing you won't see the method's argument name while coding unless you browse the implementation). So, maybe it is not necessarily? So, lets vote for the final form and then i will put it all in uniform way everywhere. foo nbInt64At: 0 vs foo nbInt64AtOffset: 0 what is your pick? -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
