"Consume", "Skip", "Eat", "Munch", "Bite", or...?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> I also defined recently:
>>
>> =======================
>> /**
>> If $(D startsWith(r1, r2)), consume the corresponding elements off $(D
>> r1) and return $(D true). Otherwise, leave $(D r1) unchanged and
>> return $(D false).
>>   */
>> bool startsWithConsume(R1, R2)(ref R1 r1, R2 r2);
>> =======================
>>
>> There are a few other functions like that: one version takes a range by
>> value, the other takes it by reference and alters it.
>>
>> The question is, what is a good naming convention for expressing that?
>> Other examples: findConsume, consumeFind.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> I thought that that was basically what chompPrefix did, and chompPrefix 
> seems like a great name to me, but I guess that that's not entirely 
> generalizable: chompFind or findChomp would be a bit weird. Consume seems 
> like the best of the ones that you suggested. It is explicitly what you're 
> doing. It's a bit long, but the others aren't as clear. Other suggestions 
> might be erase or remove, since you appear to be erasing/removing elements 
> from the range. Consume is probably better though.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> P.S. You could also go for startsWithFineDiningWithAFourCourseMeal. People 
> would absolutely love _that_ function name. ;)

Heh.

Overall the problem of choosing names by consensus is that the 
intersection is withering real fast. I agree 80% with Kenny's and 
Michel's choices. Others also seem to agree about the same percentage. 
The problem is that nobody agrees on the _same_ 80%. The net 
intersection of several people's "obviously good" naming schemes and 
conventions quickly falls to zero as the size of the group increases.

Andrei