std.uni.toLowerCase / .toUpperCase

[Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 00:16:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 23:58:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
> wrote:
>> Another point: the range-ification of Phobos is only going to 
>> continue. This means that, should this scheme be followed, the 
>> number of functions with "Lazy" in the same is only going to 
>> grow, and as these functions are intended to become the 
>> canonical way to write modern D, so will the number of 
>> occurrences of "Lazy" in a typical canonical D program. I 
>> think this is a strong argument for avoiding "Lazy", at least 
>> for functions which intend to displace their eager 
>> counterparts.
>
> But now you are going to have to come up with a clever name for 
> every replacement and the clarity of each will be shoty at 
> best. The append lazy convention at least is a convention that 
> is very clear, the other way has no rules, you just are making 
> up new names.

Well, it's true, any chosen decision is going to be a compromise.

Appending "Lazy" is only easy because the work to come up with 
suitable names has already been done for the eager variants. 
Finding suitable names for the lazy variants would entail doing 
similar work, perhaps with a bit more effort to communicate that 
this version is not eager.

I'll collect some data tomorrow to see if it's possible to find a 
likeable convention for lazy function names. But even if this 
will fail and we'll have to settle for inconsistency, I think 
overall the situation will still be better than having "Lazy" 
sprinkled everywhere. It will also be consistent with the names 
so far (e.g. join/joiner) :)