between and among: worth Phobosization? (reprise)

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:48:26PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 3/26/15 3:28 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >Don't like the name, though. Prefer 'isOrdered', otherwise it sounds
> >like some kind of sorting algorithm (as in, returns an ordered
> >sequence of its arguments).
> 
> Must be single-word name or nothing per Andrei's Hierarchy Of Naming
> Abstractions (AHONA). From low-level to high-level abstractions:
> 
> * If a realization is too simple and frequent, no abstraction should
> replace it.
> 
> * If a realization has high frequency but low complexity, it can only
> be replaced by an abstraction that is one simple word with no change
> of case.  E.g. "among" is okay, "isAmong" is not.
> 
> * If a realization has high frequency and high complexity, it may be
> replaced by an abstraction with a multi-word name, little or no
> nesting, and few or no type parameters.
> 
> * If a realization has low frequency and high complexity, it may be
> replaced by an abstraction with a multi-word name, nesting, and type
> parameters.
[...]

If the bar is this high, then I vote against adding this function.

Writing `if (0 <= x && x < 10)` is far easier and has a clear meaning,
whereas hiding it behind a poorly-named one-word abstraction actually
hurts readability and therefore maintainability. IMO this falls under
the first rule you listed above.


T

-- 
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.