Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:54:11 -0500, David Gileadi <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/9/2010 12:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:36:41 -0500, Michal Minich
>>> <michal.minich@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> assumeNoArrayReference does not express that there can be references to
>>>> the original array before slice start. probably better expressing, if
>>>> rather long name could be
>>>
>>> Actually, you can have valid references up until the slice end.
>>>
>>>> assumeNoOriginArrayReferencesPastSliceEnd
>>>> assumeNoOriginArrayReferencesAfter
>>>
>>> These are too long. As much as this is an unsafe to-be-used-with-care
>>> function, we don't want to torture those who need it :) I prefer a name
>>> with 1-3 terms in it.
>>>
>>>> or probably somthing like this:
>>>> unsafeDeletePastSlice
>>>
>>> also a little long, and I don't like the term delete, it's not actually
>>> deleting the memory.
>>
>> As long as we're bikeshedding, maybe assumeUnreferencedAfter?
> 
> This is exactly the semantic meaning we are going for.  I'd like it to be shorter...
> 
> synonyms for unreferenced?
> 
> assumeUnusedAfter
> 
> Any others ideas?
> 
> -Steve
assumeSafeExpand ?

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:29:04 -0500, Don <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:54:11 -0500, David Gileadi <foo@bar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As long as we're bikeshedding, maybe assumeUnreferencedAfter?
>>  This is exactly the semantic meaning we are going for.  I'd like it to be shorter...
>>  synonyms for unreferenced?
>>  assumeUnusedAfter
>>  Any others ideas?
>>  -Steve
> assumeSafeExpand ?

That is great!

Do you think assumeSafeAppend is better, since we do call the operation append?

-Steve