On 2009-08-05 11:11:20 -0400, Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com said:
Java and, to a lesser extent, .NET have this serious problem where all
of the names are needlessly long and verbose. This makes writing actual
code tedious and annoying. No, I do not use an IDE and I shouldn't NEED
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
This is a specious argument.
splitter's only purpose is to return an instance of a
Michel Fortin wrote:
As you know, I tried to write some guidelines[1] for naming things in D.
Those guidelines looks well at first glance, but then you look at Phobos
and you see that half of it use some arbitrary naming rules. Take
writefln for instance: following my guidelines (as they are
On 2009-08-05 03:29:11 -0400, Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
This is
On 2009-08-05 03:49:34 -0400, Robert Fraser fraseroftheni...@gmail.com said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
As you know, I tried to write some guidelines[1] for naming things in
D. Those guidelines looks well at first glance, but then you look at
Phobos and you see that half of it use some arbitrary
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
And what about the array function? Wouldn't it be clearer if it was
toArray so we
Michel Fortin Wrote:
As you know, I tried to write some guidelines[1] for naming things in D.
Those guidelines looks well at first glance, but then you look at Phobos
and you see that half of it use some arbitrary naming rules. Take
writefln for instance: following my guidelines (as they
Michel Fortin wrote:
Alternatively, writefln could be an exception to the rules, but then
the exception would need a better rationale than it shouldn't look like
Java. I mean, if Phobos makes unjustified exceptions to its naming
conventions here and there for no good other reason than it looks
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-08-05 03:29:11 -0400, Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com
said:
makeSplitter is OK, but needlessly verbose.
I think when you have a function whose only purpose is to construct
something, or is strictly or conceptually pure, it's OK to use a noun
for its
Michel Fortin wrote:
I'm tring to see how I can adapt the guidelines to accept this function
(writefln) and I can't see any sensible rule I could add. Any idea?
Alternatively, writefln could be an exception to the rules, but then
the exception would need a better rationale than it shouldn't
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Alternatively, writefln could be an exception to the rules, but then
the exception would need a better rationale than it shouldn't look like
Java. I mean, if Phobos makes unjustified exceptions to its naming
conventions here and there
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
Alternatively, writefln could be an exception to the rules, but then
the exception would need a better rationale than it shouldn't look like
Java. I mean, if Phobos makes unjustified exceptions to its naming
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
This is a specious argument.
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
This is a
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a
On 2009-08-05 18:12:16 -0400, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Andrei
Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Michel Fortinmichel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
Also, with implicit casts we wouldn't even need to bother about having a
different names for lazy and non-lazy results, we could just do:
string[] parts = str.split();
and it would implicitly convert the
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:47:35 -0400, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2009-08-05 17:40:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm,
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-08-05 17:40:34 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
Sergey Gromov wrote:
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:29:11 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or
On 2009-08-05 19:16:17 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
jarrett.billings...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Michel Fortinmichel.for...@michelf.com wr
ote:
Also, with implicit casts we wouldn't even need to bother about having a
different names for lazy and non-lazy results, we could
On 2009-08-05 20:08:43 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org said:
But then I thought D2 was about making things better without worrying
too much about backward compatibility. I find it dubious that we are
ready to do a breaking language change about how properties work,
Daniel Keep wrote:
That way, if someone writes logging functions one day that takes
formatted strings in the same way, he can reuse the convention:
log
logLine
logFormat
logLineFormat
instead of log, logln, logf, and logfln. If you create a hash
function, you can reuse the
Benji Smith wrote:
...
The thing about one-letter abbreviations is that they mean different
things in different contexts. An f might mean formatted in a
writefln function, but it means file in an ifstream and floating
point in the fenv module.
I don't think this applies. Firstly, I was
In std.algorithm, wouldn't it be clearer if splitter was called
splitLazily or splitLazy? splitter is a noun, but as a function
shouldn't it be a verb. makeSplitter or toSplitter perhaps?
And what about the array function? Wouldn't it be clearer if it was
toArray so we know we're preforming a
24 matches
Mail list logo
