On Mar 15, 2:30 pm, Jan Rychter <[email protected]> wrote: > For the record, I disagree with the naming changes in a6239b803651. The > names were carefully thought out. The rationale for keeping the very > short accessor names was that these functions will always be used on an > object called "uri-tokens" (or similar), and (all *uri-tokens*) reads > more naturally than (all-tokens *uri-tokens*). So does (remaining > uri-tokens).
I've recognized this when I made the change, but I felt that short names like that should be reserved for simple functions. The rename also has the advantage of fitting in with the rest of the accessor naming in Weblocks. It's still debatable so it would be good to hear other people's opinion on it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
