Naming things

[Joseph Cassman via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 16:06:33 UTC, Kelet wrote:
> I agree with Vladimir --
>
> There should be a naming convention for identifying whether a 
> function is eager or lazy. Learning a naming convention once 
> and applying it repeatedly is a better process than repeatedly 
> referencing documentation.
>
> A programming language should have built-in functionality that 
> is named in such a way that it clearly expresses its intent. 
> For newbies, it can be very off-putting to be introduced to a 
> language where this is not the case. Perhaps some veterans of 
> the D language can't clearly see this.
>
> There is no good reason that the new introduction of built-ins 
> should not follow a well-defined naming scheme. I'd actually go 
> a bit further and deprecate old functions that do not meet the 
> scheme and phase them out over time.
>
> Bikeshedding is arguing over trivial naming schemes. Choosing 
> to adhere to a naming scheme is not bikeshedding, IMHO.
>
> Thanks,

Well put. I don't like how often I have to refer to the 
documentation. And I have been trying to use D for a while. A 
naming convention expressing intent should reduce the need for 
frequenting the documentation. This would be a welcome addition. 
Even at the cost of dusruptive change.

Joseph