Stupid little iota of an idea

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/12/11 6:52 AM, spir wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 12:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Jonathan M Davis:
>>>
>>>> interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value
>>>> muddles that
>>>> abstraction.
>>>
>>> It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has
>>> nearly no
>>> relation with its purpose in Phobos.
>>
>> And that's part of what makes it best.
>
> What about a random name generator to define a language.stdlib's
> lexicon? Then run a post-filter fed by user complaints about given names
> actually suggesting some relation to any [part|aspect] of their sense.
>
> denis

What I meant was that "iota" is not confusable with other concepts in 
Phobos, while at the same time being evocative for the task at hand. 
Another evocative term would be "quanta", but somehow I suspect that 
will enjoy little traction. :o)

Andrei