• Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> Sep 13 2008
• Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> Sep 14 2008
• Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> Sep 14 2008
• "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> Sep 14 2008

Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> writes:

Bill Baxter Wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 Pablo Ripolles wrote:
 What about "isDone"?


 isDone is great, I just wanted to keep the one-word streak going. Let's
 see
 what everyone else says.


 Hmm.  std.algorithm does have an "isSorted" function.  So I guess I
 agree it would be more consistent if you call it isDone or isEmpty.

 Or rename "isSorted" to "sorted".  :-)  But then you have to face the
 consequences later when you want to have a predicate that is ambiguous
 without the "is".    Probably a lot of noun predicates are in that
 category -- i.e. checking  isSomeNoun(x).  Like "isRange(x)" to see if
 x is a range.  That would have to just become "range(x)" which is a
 bit ambiguous.

 So I agree. Stick the "is" in there.


 Thing is, people will call isSorted much less often than (isD|d)one. In
 std.algorithm clearly the one-word paradigm can't scale. But for a handful
 of heavily-used names I'd be willing to take the Pepsi challenge.

 Andrei

 P.S. The more I think of it, the more I like "tip" of the range. Short,
 poignant, easy to remember. Not pressing the red button just yet.


 Hmm.  One semantic issue I have is that the tip usually refers to the
 infinitessimal point at the end.  Not a thing with substance.  I'm
 having trouble feeling like I'm going to get an item back when I look
 at "x.tip".  Head has huge history being used for the item at the
 front of a list, so I think that's much less likely to cause anyone
 looking at D code to scratch their heads.  It will be obvious what it
 means even in relative isolation.  head/tip will often appear without
 "toe" in forward range algos.  So you need to be able to easily
 recognize what "tip" means without seeing that "toe" to give context.
 Toe on the other hand will probably almost always appear with his
 mate.
 
 Ooh, another scale thing, but a head is obviously a very different
 scale than a toe.  A foot is closer to the same scale.  Maybe
 head/foot is better than head/toe.  The connection between retreating
 / feet is stronger that retreating / toes, too!
 
 --bb


After having had some sleep, I kind of support Bill's proposal, that is,
head/foot, definitely better than head/toe.  It's like the header and the
footer! sounds very reasonable.  Of course I also like fore/aft, but thats
because my aeronautical engineering bias.

tip is too ambiguous.

tail refers to all what comes after the head, not to its tip.

Cheers!

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:

On 2008-09-13 04:18:20 -0400, Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> said:

 After having had some sleep, I kind of support Bill's proposal, that 
 is, head/foot, definitely better than head/toe.  It's like the header 
 and the footer! sounds very reasonable.  Of course I also like 
 fore/aft, but thats because my aeronautical engineering bias.
 
 tip is too ambiguous.
 
 tail refers to all what comes after the head, not to its tip.
 
 Cheers!


Anyone suggested head/rear yet?


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> writes:

Michel Fortin Wrote:

 On 2008-09-13 04:18:20 -0400, Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> said:
 
 After having had some sleep, I kind of support Bill's proposal, that 
 is, head/foot, definitely better than head/toe.  It's like the header 
 and the footer! sounds very reasonable.  Of course I also like 
 fore/aft, but thats because my aeronautical engineering bias.
 
 tip is too ambiguous.
 
 tail refers to all what comes after the head, not to its tip.
 
 Cheers!


 Anyone suggested head/rear yet?


Hello, if I remember well, yes.  I also like it!  I don't recall the argument
against it though...

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> wrote:
 Michel Fortin Wrote:

 On 2008-09-13 04:18:20 -0400, Pablo Ripolles <in-call gmx.net> said:

 After having had some sleep, I kind of support Bill's proposal, that
 is, head/foot, definitely better than head/toe.  It's like the header
 and the footer! sounds very reasonable.  Of course I also like
 fore/aft, but thats because my aeronautical engineering bias.

 tip is too ambiguous.

 tail refers to all what comes after the head, not to its tip.

 Cheers!


 Anyone suggested head/rear yet?


 Hello, if I remember well, yes.  I also like it!  I don't recall the argument
against it though...


I think it was that if you're thinking body parts, then "rear" means
someone's bottom.  There's an expression -- "get your head out of your
rear" -- that comes to mind.

--bb