[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rb5: remove combinatorial explosion patch
From: |
Richard Boulton |
Subject: |
Re: rb5: remove combinatorial explosion patch |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:14:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:07:04PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard Boulton <address@hidden> writes:
> [snip]
> >+ (variable_conditions_nonrecursive): New function.
> >+ (variable_value_as_list_nonrecursive): New function.
>
> I think the first would be better named as 'variable_direct_conditions'.
> The second could be 'variable_direct_value_as_list', or
> 'variable_unexpanded_value_as_list'.
I agree that the names of these functions aren't wonderful. I definitely
think they should be consistent though (ie, having one with "direct" and
one with "unexpanded" would be bad).
If I was writing from scratch, I'd simply call them "variable_conditions"
and "variable_value_as_list", and add "_recursive" to the other variants
(ie, the existing methods with those names).
Perhaps that would be the best thing to do even now: it would emphasise
that these functions can end up doing a lot of work and using a lot of
resources, and when they finally get deprecated the naming would be
simple and sensible.
I do think the word "recursive" is the best word to put in these function
names. What else clearly conveys that they recurse through the
sub-variables?
Actually, I think the dodgiest name I chose was
&source_transform_variable().
--
Richard