The new, new phobos sneak preview

[Daniel Keep]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-04-12 14:24:07 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> said:
> 
>> Leandro Lucarella, el 12 de abril a las 15:19 me escribiste:
>>> Michel Fortin, el 12 de abril a las 12:54 me escribiste:
>>>> On 2009-04-12 11:09:51 -0400, Lars Kyllingstad
>>>> <public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> said:
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it should be renamed to isUnbounded then.
>>>
>>> I was about to write exaclty the same suggestion. I'm glad I read the
>>> responses before posting =)
>>
>> Maybe isBounded, to avoid the double negation when checking for
>> !isUnbounded...
> 
> Which makes me think of one thing: why "isBounded" instead of plain and
> simple "bounded"? Ranges don't respond to "isEmpty": they have "empty"
> instead.
> 
> I think it is time to establish some kind of standard for naming things,
> and then follow it. Something a little like Cocoa's Coding Guidelines
> comes to mind:
> 
> <http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/CodingGuidelines/CodingGuidelines.html>

You mean http://digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dstyle.html ?  That said, the
"Naming Conventions" section is actually about formatting names, not
choosing them.

One major advantage Cocoa has over D is that argument names seem to be
part of the function's name.  For example, this call:

  sendAction(aSelector, anObject, flag);

appears to be written like so in Objective C:

  [sendAction: aSelector to: anObject forAllCells: flag];

To be honest, there are times I almost wish we could not only name
arguments on the caller side, but demand that they're named in the
definition.

  void sendAction(SEL, Object to, extern bool forAllCells);

  sendAction(aSelector,
    to: anObject,         // optional
    forAllCells: true);   // required



  -- Daniel