Naming of new lazy versions of existing Phobos functions

[Tourist via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 22:59:27 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> Walter's prototype[1] for removing allocations from a phobos 
> function (std.path.setExtension) got hung up on the naming of 
> the function. It couldn't keep the same name because it 
> differed only by return type.
>
> Walter doesn't like explicitly naming them as lazy because 
> existing lazy functions like most of std.algorithm don't have 
> names that state they are lazy. On the other hand, setExt is 
> controversial because it's an arbitrary abbreviation done just 
> to avoid the naming conflict. Not every function we'd like to 
> see adopt the same approach would be amenable to a simple 
> abbreviation to dodge the naming issue.
>
> I think it's probably a good time to come up with a naming 
> scheme for these lazy versions of existing functions so things 
> are consistent throughout Phobos.
>
> David Nadlinger offered a few ideas in the thread: 
> setExtensionLazy, extensionSetter, or withExtension.
>
> I find the "with" prefix particularly attractive. It implies 
> the lazy behavior, is short, and reads well when chained with 
> other calls. Hypothetical example I gave in the Pull Request 
> comments:
>
>   auto contents =
>       "  FILE".withStrip()
>               .withLowercase()
>               .withExtension(".txt")
>               .readText();
>
> At the risk of bikeshedding, I thought it would be useful to 
> solicit the wider forum audience for ideas and opinions. 
> Thoughts?
>
> 1. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2149

Are you planning to deprecate the non-lazy functions at some 
(maybe very distant) point? If yes, I agree that it's a good 
opportunity for a cleanup, and there's no point to add 
prefixes/suffixes.