checkedint call removal

Daniel Gibson via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Aug 1 12:06:39 PDT 2014


Am 01.08.2014 20:50, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 8/1/2014 7:08 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> I'm not a native speaker..
>
> I couldn't tell - your english is excellent.
>

Thank you :)

>> .. but even if I were: words used for constructs/function-names/... in
>> programming often don't 100% match their "real" meaning (as used in human
>> communication)[1] - why should it be different for assert(),
>> especially when not
>> implemented/used like that in many popular programming languages?
>
> Every discipline has its own jargon.

Sure, and in programming jargon assert() until now was a runtime check 
that could be deactivated - even though the "spoken language" word 
"assert" might imply more.

> For example, what would "sick" mean
> to a motorhead?

You mean "motorhead" like in someone who likes cars or like in the the 
heavy metal band? :-P
(Non-native speakers probably associate motorhead with the band and 
often don't know the original meaning)


>
> We also had quite a struggle coming up with the name "immutable". Every
> term we tried seemed inadequate, until we noticed that we were always
> explaining "XXX means the data is immutable", and realized that
> "immutable" was what we were after.
>

Yeah, coming up with terms is hard (I sometimes spend a long time 
thinking about the right name just for a function!), but if a term 
already has a meaning in your current context, redefining it should 
probably be avoided.

Cheers,
Daniel


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list