ch-ch-changes

[Chad J]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> 
>> Isn't "tail" the standard counterpart to "head"? ("toe" just doesn't sound
>> good)
> 
> Tail has a history of being used to mean "everything but head" in
> functional programming languages like Haskel and ML.
> 
> So of  back, last, end, tail, rear, foot, toe, it seems every one has
> some strike against it.
> 
> back - could be mistaken for an action
> last - doesn't pair well with "head", and "first" sounds too much like
> item #1 overall
> end - in C++ usually means "one past the end"
> tail - in FP langs means "everything but head"
> rear - makes Walter thing unhappy thoughts
> toe - sounds silly, doesn't make so much sense for a range that
> represents a tree structure.
> 
> Toe is sounding pretty ok.
> 
> Actually I think the critique that it doesn't make sense for a
> non-linear range should be thrown out.  Linearizing is the whole
> purpose of a range.  So even if it wasn't linear before, a range
> effective is providing a linearized view of it.
> 
> So that leaves "it sounds silly", which is a pretty weak subjective
> argument against.
> 
> --bb

The parts totally need to be barrel, stock, and butt!
...
Anyhow,

aft (opposed to fore)
terminal/terminus
stern (opposed to bow)
cathode (opposed to anode)

Have these been mentioned or dismissed?

With something like "toe" on the table, nautical and electrical
analogies don't seem so far fetched anymore.  I think the reason why a
lot of us are uncomfortable with "toe" is because it takes even a little
bit of thinking to understand its relation to "head;" at that point we'd
be better off calling it a "foot."  This kind of analogy shouldn't
require thought to understand (guess this makes cathode sort of
inadequate)-- that is, it has to be intuitive, brief, and (ideally)
catchy.

- Chad