On 6/25/15 6:45 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> http://dump.thecybershadow.net/0362443dfcca30860db907e494831b79/names.diff
>>
>
> Rationale: Same as toLowerCase/toUpperCase.
>
> Suggested new name: Following the same pattern as whatever new
> toLowerCase/toUpperCase names will be chosen.

There was that PR with some logic for naming the casing functions. It's still relevant. -- Andrei

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 18:55:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Is that the function that just takes a few values? isOrdered(0, x, 100) is a bit grating seeing as the grammar requires "are ordered". -- Andrei

Ah, true, I misread the documentation.

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 18:56:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/25/15 6:45 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> http://dump.thecybershadow.net/0362443dfcca30860db907e494831b79/names.diff
>>>
>>
>> Rationale: Same as toLowerCase/toUpperCase.
>>
>> Suggested new name: Following the same pattern as whatever new
>> toLowerCase/toUpperCase names will be chosen.
>
> There was that PR with some logic for naming the casing functions. It's still relevant. -- Andrei

Jacob's PR?

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3243

Yes, we've discussed lowerCaser/upperCaser a lot in this thread. Last post in that discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mmh47u$28bu$1@digitalmars.com

On 6/25/15 12:00 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 18:56:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 6/25/15 6:45 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>>> http://dump.thecybershadow.net/0362443dfcca30860db907e494831b79/names.diff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rationale: Same as toLowerCase/toUpperCase.
>>>
>>> Suggested new name: Following the same pattern as whatever new
>>> toLowerCase/toUpperCase names will be chosen.
>>
>> There was that PR with some logic for naming the casing functions.
>> It's still relevant. -- Andrei
>
> Jacob's PR?
>
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3243
>
> Yes, we've discussed lowerCaser/upperCaser a lot in this thread. Last
> post in that discussion:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mmh47u$28bu$1@digitalmars.com

Yah, that's the one. Glad it's under consideration - this is the only time it could ever be. -- Andrei

On 6/25/15 2:37 PM, deadalnix wrote:

> I can do another PR to change the name. Let's already get the TupeTuple
> in the old module and remove it from std.meta so at least this
> monstrosity stay contained.

Well, we should at least have the documentation for std.meta not referring to a symbol that doesn't exist there.

-Steve

On 6/24/15 11:12 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> So I actually implemented this. I made it a std.internal type so it can
> be used wherever you need to port string concatenation to a chain.

Seems like Andrei has nixed this idea:

"Please no breakages and no clever schemes and no overengineering."

http://forum.dlang.org/post/mmhjqe$2mud$1@digitalmars.com

Oh well. I'm kind of done with the whole naming thing, there are better things I could (and probably should) be doing. Plus arguing against Walter and/or Andrei is kind of an uphill battle, especially if they both agree on something.

I'll leave the branch up for anyone who wants to continue to try things with it, it was a very cool idea.

-Steve

2015-06-25 21:28 GMT+02:00 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:

> On 6/24/15 11:12 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> So I actually implemented this. I made it a std.internal type so it can be used wherever you need to port string concatenation to a chain.
>>
>
> Seems like Andrei has nixed this idea:
>
> "Please no breakages and no clever schemes and no overengineering."
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mmhjqe$2mud$1@digitalmars.com
>
> Oh well. I'm kind of done with the whole naming thing, there are better things I could (and probably should) be doing. Plus arguing against Walter and/or Andrei is kind of an uphill battle, especially if they both agree on something.
>
> I'll leave the branch up for anyone who wants to continue to try things with it, it was a very cool idea.
>
> -Steve
>

And he's right. It is really annoying to update to a new version and have perfectly valid and working code breaking because someone had a nice idea. Ideally, we should only ever break code that has a bug in it.

On 6/25/15 3:48 PM, Mathias Lang via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 2015-06-25 21:28 GMT+02:00 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>>:
>
>     On 6/24/15 11:12 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>         So I actually implemented this. I made it a std.internal type so
>         it can
>         be used wherever you need to port string concatenation to a chain.
>
>
>     Seems like Andrei has nixed this idea:
>
>     "Please no breakages and no clever schemes and no overengineering."
>
>     http://forum.dlang.org/post/mmhjqe$2mud$1@digitalmars.com
>
>     Oh well. I'm kind of done with the whole naming thing, there are
>     better things I could (and probably should) be doing. Plus arguing
>     against Walter and/or Andrei is kind of an uphill battle, especially
>     if they both agree on something.
>
>     I'll leave the branch up for anyone who wants to continue to try
>     things with it, it was a very cool idea.
>
>
> And he's right. It is really annoying to update to a new version and
> have perfectly valid and working code breaking because someone had a
> nice idea. Ideally, we should only ever break code that has a bug in it.

Yeah, I agree for existing names, but these are unreleased new names.

-Steve

On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 19:55:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Yeah, I agree for existing names, but these are unreleased new names.

I thought the idea was to use this trick to avoid introducing the new names, and instead change the established names in a mostly-backwards-compatible way.

On 6/25/15 3:57 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 19:55:41 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Yeah, I agree for existing names, but these are unreleased new names.
>
> I thought the idea was to use this trick to avoid introducing the new
> names, and instead change the established names in a
> mostly-backwards-compatible way.

Yeah, that is the idea. There should be no code breakage, or it won't fly. I took the "no clever schemes and no overengineering" as a rejection of this idea, only renaming is on the table.

-Steve