Stupid little iota of an idea

[retard]

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:54:24 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:

> On 02/12/2011 04:52 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:21:15 bearophile wrote:
>>> Jonathan M Davis:
>>>> On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> And that's part of what makes it best.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a public API.
>>
>> I'm not saying that you should typically pick function names that way.
>> But given that we already have iota, have already had iota for some
>> time, and that there is already a C++ function by the same name that
>> does the same thing, I see no reason to change it. It's nice and
>> memorable, and it doesn't create confusion based on misunderstanding
>> its name. Sure, a name that clearly says what it does would be nice,
>> but I don't really like any of the names that have been suggested, and
>> iota has worked just fine thus far.
> 
> Andrei's minion in me is feeling the urge to add that "iota" is also
> used in Go (for generating consecutive integers at compile-time,
> http://golang.org/doc/go_spec.html#Iota), and since Go is supposed to
> grow popular, "iota" will gain more popularity as well.

You're just arguing against his principles:

"..besides arguments ad populum are fallacious"

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=129453