along the consistency in function naming vein: file-name-from-path versus filename-extension. is "filename" 1 word or 2? i prefer 1.
even more tangential, why isn't file-name-from-path "path->filename" instead? or even "basename"? On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:07, David T. Pierson <d...@mindstory.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:44:35AM -0400, David T. Pierson wrote: > > (Presumably if equally concise names that better reflected function > > signatures were available, they would have been used in the first > > place.) > > Sorry for the double post. I should have added "equally lucid" along > with "equally concise". > > Perhaps what I should have asked was simply whether there exist names > that better indicate function signatures but are still good in all or > most other important aspects, and whether it is worth breaking > compatibility for such. > > David > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
