ch-ch-changes

[Don]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:07:16 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> 
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message
>> news:gloppm$1vog$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> [...]
>>>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>>
>>>> This is some awesome stuff.  std.range and std.algorithm are really
>>>> coming together into a compelling whole.  I don't know what else to
>>>> say - _you_ seem to know what you're doing!
>>>>
>>>> It's a minor point, but in the docs, with all the templating madness
>>>> it gets very hard to find the name of the symbol actually being
>>>> documented.  For example:
>>>>
>>>> Filter!(unaryFun!(pred),Chain!(Ranges)) filter(alias pred,
>>>> Ranges...)(Ranges rs);
>>>>
>>>> "filter" gets lost in the middle.  Could it be highlighted, or moved
>>>> to the front (using a Pascal-like "func(params) : returntype" syntax
>>>> instead)?
>>>
>>> Good point. Actually I've been experimenting with using "auto" for the
>>> return type. That does work most of the time, but unfortunately ddoc
>>> doesn't understand it. Then,
>>>
>>>> Also - "toe" is still a stupid name.  ;)  "first" and "last" would
>>>> have been my first choices, they seem so obvious.
>>>
>>> Turns out toe isn't half bad when I was coding with it - all I needed 
>>> was
>>> something short and memorable.
>>>
>>> One problem with "first" is that it sometimes suggests something 
>>> else. For
>>> example, if I have a generator for the numbers 1 to 10 and have advanced
>>> it a bit, gen.first suggests I'm looking back to the very first element,
>>> not the state of the iteration. I agree that gen.head isn't terribly
>>> evocative either, but then at least it doesn't evoke something wrong 
>>> :o).
>>>
>>> Anyhow, how about doing what Haskell does? They use "head" and 
>>> "last". And
>>> at least we'd be able to blame *them* if anyone doesn't like the names
>>> :o). Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Isn't "tail" the standard counterpart to "head"? ("toe" just doesn't 
>> sound
>> good)
>>
>>
> 
> Tail is often used to denote anything but head (imagine snake).

It's those Lisp programmers. It's a bit deranged, I reckon. I'm going to 
call them tadpoles from now on.