Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[dolive]

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

> On Thursday, March 08, 2012 20:42:31 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:07:43PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:10:07 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > > > IMO, making all abbreviations in Phobos consistent would be a big
> > > > step forward.
> > > 
> > > You know, people keep saying that the abbreviations are inconsistent,
> > > but I don't buy that. _What_ abbreviations are inconsistent?
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > My comment was referring specifically to the pull request that adds
> > "secs" as an alternative for "seconds". From what Walter said, he seems
> > to be against any renaming changes, so any existing inconsistencies that
> > we might find seems likely to be rejected as well.
> > 
> > But at the end of the day, this *is* just bikeshedding, so perhaps it's
> > not worth spending so much time and energy on. People will get used to
> > the quirky names eventually, and life goes on. *shrug*
> 
> I think that most of the major issues with inconsistencies have been fixed. 
> Sure, there may be a few left, but the longer that they're there, the more 
> costly it is to fix them. And D is reaching the point where it needs to be 
> stable. Constantly tweaking the standard library just doesn't cut it. I made 
> quite a few changes to try and fix inconsistencies (such as function names 
> which weren't camelcased like they were supposed to be), and that was painful 
> enough, and engendered plenty of complaints in spite of the fact that there 
> were quite a few people arguing for fixing the names to make Phobos consistent.
> 
> I really don't think that Phobos is really any more quirky or inconsistent 
> than your average standard library. It's not perfect, but it isn't 
> particularly inconsistent either. We'll continue to make improvement to it 
> (primarily by adding new stuff), but it's increasingly costly to make breaking 
> changes. And, on the whole, it's not like what we have is horrible. The 
> biggest problems involve whole modules (which are generally older) which need 
> to be redesigned, and those will happen. But minor stuff like tweaking function 
> names doesn't really buy us enough to be worth it anymore. If a function 
> changes sufficiently to merit a full replacement, then maybe we can change its 
> name and phase out the old one (e.g. if we change the functions in std.string 
> which take patterns to take regexes instead), but changing a name to change a 
> name just isn't worth it when we're trying to provide a serious offering with D 
> and Phobos. We're too far along.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

make breaking changes at the same time provide a change list and provide a automatically batch changes the tools of third - party source code.

good luck

dolive