On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 09:56 +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
Although I appluad the semantics of the safe package, I'm not delighted with the idea of replacing our concise elegant standard library names with uglyAndRatherLongCamelCaseNamesThatCouldBePerlOrEvenJava though. Conciseness of expression is a virtue.
They aren't that long - merely an extra 4 characters over the standard one to indicate what the specific semantics are. If you can think of better names, then I'm happy to make use of them.
No, they're not, and it wasn't intended as a slight against your naming choice. I don't have a better suggestion.
Isn't there sort of a tradition for 'unsafe' to mean dangerous territory, beyond mere domain limitations for functions, so to call this 'safe' may be a bit misleading? Similarly, I expect foo and foo' to be equivalent, except for strictness properties, but perhaps an underscore could be used for slightly different behaviors (interpretations, as it were)? "tail_" or "zip_", anyone? -k