Stupid little iota of an idea

[spir]

On 02/12/2011 02:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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)

Sorry for the somewhat humourous (?) reply above. Your statement shocked me a 
bit (quite the opposite of what i think is good in design --for public use).
Now, I very much agree that <"iota" is not confusable with other concepts in 
Phobos> is a very good property.
And to clore my participation to this debate: I would not mind "iota" to 
remain, anyway not everyday use feature. But I think it's good we have 
discussed this point at length, for other features, present & future. "On the 
importance of proper naming." (for others' benefit)

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com