Fixing const arrays

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, December 12, 2011 09:16:53 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/12/11 9:09 AM, torhu wrote:
> > On 12.12.2011 15:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 12/12/11 6:24 AM, torhu wrote:
> >>> save being a property is a stupid inconsistency.
> >> 
> >> I'm not so sure.
> >> 
> >> Andrei
> > 
> > Why? As far as I can tell, it's inconsistent with what properties are
> > used like in other programming languages.
> 
> Why?
> 
> > Saving something is an action,
> > which to me is a different concept.
> 
> So if we called .save .state or .current things would be any different?
> 
> > If it was called currentState
> > instead, that's what I'd call a property.
> 
> Ah. So now we're wasting time not on @property (as I'd predicted), but
> instead on what _names_ are suitable to work with it. I rest my case.
> 
> > Making something a property gives it certain connotations that break
> > when it's called 'save'. That you can save the state of the range is a
> > property, if you will. But the action of doing so is not a property.
> > People are going to be surprised when save() doesn't compile. Isn't
> > there something called the principle of least surprise?
> 
> I think we should only worry about surprising the uninitiated with how
> poorly designed the whole @property thing is.

A property is essentially an abstraction to treat a function like a member 
variable. As such, the naming conventions for a property should be equivalent 
to those for a variable - and that generally means nouns. save is not a noun. 
It's an action verb. So, yes, I think that it's a completely inappropriate 
name for a property. Something ilke state or current _would_ be appropriate 
names. However, at this point, I really don't think that it's worth arguing 
about.

If I were to change it, I'd probably just make save a function rather than 
renaming it, but if we did it, then there would be quite a bit of code that 
would have to be changed essentially over an argument over whether save is 
valid property name because it's not a noun. And while I _don't_ think that 
it's a valid property name, that's getting a bit petty given how much code 
would break.

I'm all for fixing names for camelcasing, because that really affects the 
consistency of the library and is almost always completely objective, but this 
is essentially an argument over the best name for a function, and that never 
has a clear answer. Yes, it's an issue of consistency on some level with 
regards to how we treat and name properties, but that's subjective enough that 
I don't expect us to ever be completely consistent on that.

- Jonathan M Davis