ch-ch-changes

[Yigal Chripun]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> [...]
>>> Feedback welcome.
>>
>> This is some awesome stuff. std.range and std.algorithm are really
>> coming together into a compelling whole. I don't know what else to
>> say - _you_ seem to know what you're doing!
>>
>> It's a minor point, but in the docs, with all the templating madness
>> it gets very hard to find the name of the symbol actually being
>> documented. For example:
>>
>> Filter!(unaryFun!(pred),Chain!(Ranges)) filter(alias pred,
>> Ranges...)(Ranges rs);
>>
>> "filter" gets lost in the middle. Could it be highlighted, or moved
>> to the front (using a Pascal-like "func(params) : returntype" syntax
>> instead)?
>
> Good point. Actually I've been experimenting with using "auto" for the
> return type. That does work most of the time, but unfortunately ddoc
> doesn't understand it. Then,
>
>> Also - "toe" is still a stupid name. ;) "first" and "last" would
>> have been my first choices, they seem so obvious.
>
> Turns out toe isn't half bad when I was coding with it - all I needed
> was something short and memorable.
>
> One problem with "first" is that it sometimes suggests something else.
> For example, if I have a generator for the numbers 1 to 10 and have
> advanced it a bit, gen.first suggests I'm looking back to the very first
> element, not the state of the iteration. I agree that gen.head isn't
> terribly evocative either, but then at least it doesn't evoke something
> wrong :o).
>
> Anyhow, how about doing what Haskell does? They use "head" and "last".
> And at least we'd be able to blame *them* if anyone doesn't like the
> names :o). Thoughts?
>
>
> Andrei

in that case, maybe have "current" and "last"?
also, I don't like the "empty" because it's a negative test and I'm a 
positive person :)
I prefer something like Tango's "more" or Java's longer "hasNext".