On Sep 1, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:
Style question: the Chicken 3 version of base64 consists of two
procedures: base64:encode and base64:decode. For the modularized
version in Chicken 4, should the prefix simply be stripped ("encode",
"decode"), or should they be more descriptive, such as base64-encode
and base64-decode?
I'm leaning toward the latter, because I don't think a namespace is a
substitute for a properly descriptive name.
I agree. But ...
Taken too far, the former
might lead to modules with a single procedure called "go", "do" or
"execute". And a (require-extension base64) that pulls in "encode"
and "decode" is nearly useless -- the module system serving to
exacerbate rather than diminish namespace conflicts.
But, I can understand that some may prefer to deal with the
disambiguation at the module level. Does anyone have any thoughts?
This is a very soft area. While "encode" is probably too ambiguous
what about "encipher"? "broadcast" is questionable but what about
"disseminate"? I guess it comes down to is it clear from context.
I admit to not being a big fan of generic sounding names for rather
specific operations.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Best Wishes,
Kon
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
