Should this work?

[Regan Heath]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:42:08 -0000, Dicebot <public at dicebot.lv> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 10:13:44 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
>>> I will go and check in docs in most case if I have not encountered it  
>>> before. Check each time for every new aliases. I'd hate to have this  
>>> overhead.
>>
>> Huh?  Assuming you have a decent editor checking the docs should be as  
>> simple as pressing F1 on the unknown function.
>
> It requires your mental context switching anyway.
>
>> And, that's only assuming it's not immediately obvious what it's  
>> doing.  Are you telling me, that you would be confused by seeing...
>>
>> if (str.contains("hello"))
>
> I won't be confused but I won't also be sure. For example, it may return  
> boolean or inclusion count. `str` can be string of array of strings.  
> With uniform ranges-based algorithms I can always expect consistent  
> interpretation (or rant about inconsistent naming :)
>
>> I seriously doubt that, and that's all I'm suggesting, adding aliases  
>> for things which are obvious, things which any beginner will expect to  
>> be there, and currently aren't there.
>
> I don't buy into appealing to imaginary "any beginner" which has  
> expectations identical to other "any beginner". My observations show  
> quite the contrary - that those expectations are actually often  
> different and incompatible and best way for a language is to force  
> beginners to switch to expectations of the language.

*shrug* agree to disagree on all points.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/