Re: [Chicken-users] base64 module naming

[Kon Lovett]

On Sep 1, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:

> Style question: the Chicken 3 version of base64 consists of two
> procedures: base64:encode and base64:decode.  For the modularized
> version in Chicken 4, should the prefix simply be stripped ("encode",
> "decode"), or should they be more descriptive, such as base64-encode
> and base64-decode?

> I'm leaning toward the latter, because I don't think a namespace is a
> substitute for a properly descriptive name.

I agree. But ...

>  Taken too far, the former
> might lead to modules with a single procedure called "go", "do" or
> "execute".  And a (require-extension base64) that pulls in "encode"
> and "decode" is nearly useless -- the module system serving to
> exacerbate rather than diminish namespace conflicts.
>
> But, I can understand that some may prefer to deal with the
> disambiguation at the module level.  Does anyone have any thoughts?

This is a very soft area. While "encode" is probably too ambiguous  
what about "encipher"? "broadcast" is questionable but what about  
"disseminate"? I guess it comes down to is it clear from context.

I admit to not being a big fan of generic sounding names for rather  
specific operations.

> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Best Wishes,
Kon