Am Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:50:10 -0800
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>:

> On 1/8/15 9:16 AM, Kiith-Sa wrote:
> >
> > This is a problem with naming, not with DDox. It would look bad regardless of generator, or regardless of documentation at all. You could make it look slightly less bad, but you might end up hurting other documentation. (I'm not implying  it should be renamed (bad reason for breaking compatibility), but I see no point in changing doc generation just because of some bad naming.)
> 
> Sigh. No matter how I look at it, the same name repeated FOUR times only evokes Java's factory factory etc. -- Andrei

These 4x digest variants never occur in real code though:

http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.digest.html is a
class member function. You never use the full name,
it's always instance.digest()

http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.html could be used with the full name. But ironically the name is not used outside of std.digest so it's usually not necessary to use the full name.

So it doesn't look nice in the docs but it's not a huge problem when writing code.

On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:19:44 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Thu, 08 Jan 2015 07:44:17 -0800
> schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>:
>
>> On 1/8/15 4:46 AM, aldanor wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 07:09:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> > wrote:

>
> What kind of action would you expect? Renaming a name
> which has been used for two years now without complaints, simply
> because it looks bad in the new documentation?

I would like to see that wheel start rolling, though.

On my personal list:

std.uni -> std.unicode
stripLeft -> stripFront
stripRight -> stripBack

On 1/8/15 12:01 PM, eles wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 16:19:44 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> Am Thu, 08 Jan 2015 07:44:17 -0800
>> schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>:
>>
>>> On 1/8/15 4:46 AM, aldanor wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 07:09:01 UTC, Andrei > Alexandrescu
>>> > wrote:
>
>>
>> What kind of action would you expect? Renaming a name
>> which has been used for two years now without complaints, simply
>> because it looks bad in the new documentation?
>
> I would like to see that wheel start rolling, though.
>
> On my personal list:
>
> std.uni -> std.unicode
> stripLeft -> stripFront
> stripRight -> stripBack

Let's leave these alone, thanks. -- Andrei

On 1/8/15 11:48 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:50:10 -0800
> schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>:
>
>> On 1/8/15 9:16 AM, Kiith-Sa wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a problem with naming, not with DDox. It would look bad
>>> regardless of generator, or regardless of documentation at all. You
>>> could make it look slightly less bad, but you might end up hurting
>>> other documentation. (I'm not implying  it should be renamed (bad
>>> reason for breaking compatibility), but I see no point in changing
>>> doc generation just because of some bad naming.)
>>
>> Sigh. No matter how I look at it, the same name repeated FOUR times
>> only evokes Java's factory factory etc. -- Andrei
>
> These 4x digest variants never occur in real code though:
>
> http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.digest.html is a
> class member function. You never use the full name,
> it's always instance.digest()
>
> http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.html could be used
> with the full name. But ironically the name is not used outside of
> std.digest so it's usually not necessary to use the full name.
>
> So it doesn't look nice in the docs but it's not a huge problem when
> writing code.

This is a matter common with words that are both noun and verb. "Let's have a Digest object that digests stuff." I think the review should have prompted a name change. -- Andrei

On 8 January 2015 at 21:16, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/15 11:48 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>
>> Am Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:50:10 -0800
>> schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>:
>>
>>> On 1/8/15 9:16 AM, Kiith-Sa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a problem with naming, not with DDox. It would look bad regardless of generator, or regardless of documentation at all. You could make it look slightly less bad, but you might end up hurting other documentation. (I'm not implying  it should be renamed (bad reason for breaking compatibility), but I see no point in changing doc generation just because of some bad naming.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh. No matter how I look at it, the same name repeated FOUR times only evokes Java's factory factory etc. -- Andrei
>>
>>
>> These 4x digest variants never occur in real code though:
>>
>> http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.digest.html is a
>> class member function. You never use the full name,
>> it's always instance.digest()
>>
>> http://dlang.org/library/std/digest/digest/digest.html could be used with the full name. But ironically the name is not used outside of std.digest so it's usually not necessary to use the full name.
>>
>> So it doesn't look nice in the docs but it's not a huge problem when writing code.
>
>
> This is a matter common with words that are both noun and verb. "Let's have a Digest object that digests stuff." I think the review should have prompted a name change. -- Andrei
>
>


Something that I noticed, having blue as the class="prettyprint lang-d" colour was not a good idea for all things (see the copyright information at the bottom).

http://dlang.org/library/std/math/tan.html