www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Naming things

reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
Naming things

       There are only two hard things
       in Computer Science: cache
       invalidation and naming things.
       -- Phil Karlton

Hello,

There has been a lot of recent debate regarding the names of some 
new functions recently added to Phobos.

Mostly this concerns the good work of Walter Bright, and new 
functions which operate on ranges rather than strings.

A few times, many people felt that the names could have been 
chosen better - in some cases, much better. This is not a 
singular occurrence, but a recurrent one:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/ybbwpgmgsqvmbvoqhmxm forum.dlang.org
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2149#issuecomment-42867964

So far, post-merge name changes have been rejected:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3243
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3426

Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, 
and toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same 
functionality, but one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. 
Can you guess which is which?

I would like to argue that these rejections were poorly 
argumented and should have been accepted. Although the names of 
these particular functions are the primary point of the post, I 
would like to also discuss the general policy of minor changes.

I have discussed the issue at hand with Andrei Alexandrescu on 
IRC. Here are some points gathered:

1.

The renames do not apply to code that appeared in a DMD release, 
thus they are non-breaking changes.

As the actual code has been merged, the renames are not blocking 
anything either.

2.

There seems to be some confusion regarding what counts as 
consensus.

Walter Bright argues that there is no consensus regarding the new 
names. I would like to split this argument into two questions:

a) Is there consensus that the current names are very bad, and 
should be changed?

b) Is there consensus on which name to use?

These two questions must not be confused.

I think there is sufficient evidence that shows that everyone who 
has an opinion on the names, agrees that the current names are 
pretty bad.

What the new names should be is of secondary importance, as long 
as the names are changed to any of the suggested names.

3.

The main argument against allowing post-merge renames is that 
allowing one invites an infinite number of other minor changes. I 
think this is not a good argument, because:

- In this particular case, there is unilateral consensus that the 
current names are objectively bad, and should be changed. There 
are no arguments that show that e.g. "setExt" is a better name 
than e.g. "withExtension". I see no problem with not acting on 
renaming suggestions in situations when there is no consensus.

- Naming things well matters. We need to treat renames in the 
same way as minor breaking changes. In the same way that we do 
not reject minor breaking fixes and improvements to the 
implementations of functions that have not yet been released, we 
should improve the naming of identifiers if there is consensus 
that the change is an improvement.

4.

I have often heard the argument that bikeshedding distracts from 
getting actual work done, or variations of such. I think this 
argument is flawed.

Discussions about minor things will continue regardless of 
whether small changes, such as renames, are rejected as a matter 
or policy or not. (Yes, this post is an example of this.) Yes, 
allowing some minor changes but not others will generate debate 
on why some changes were accepted and others not. Rejecting all 
minor changes does not prevent such debate from occurring, 
especially since there will always be exceptions (see e.g. 
std.meta).

I would thus like to argue that the policy of "no minor changes, 
even non-breaking" should be reviewed.

5.

Again, naming things well matters. An API with confusing or 
overlapping identifier names is a bad API. I've said this above 
but I want to say this again: we need to stop looking at renames 
as evil or as a waste of time, and look at them in the same way 
as (breaking) changes to the API / functionality. Just like API 
or functionality changes can be subjective in their usefulness, 
so can renames be controversial or overwhelmingly positive.

I do not disagree that how well identifiers are named is a 
secondary concern to the functionality that they provide. But 
this does not mean that we should ignore the quality of the 
names, and furthermore, reject any attempts to improve them.

6.

Concerning the naming itself.

My involvement comes from when my PR to rename setExt to 
withExtension was closed.

I would like to present a very similar case in another language, 
JavaScript.

The String method has two functions with a similar name and 
functionality: "substr" and "substring". If you were to search 
the web, you can find a multitude of confusion over these 
functions:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3745515/what-is-the-difference-between-substr-and-substring
https://nathanhoad.net/javascript-difference-between-substr-and-substring
http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2013/08/difference-between-substr-vs-substring-in-JavaScript-tutorial-example.html
https://rapd.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/javascript-substr-vs-substring/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAameXW5r10

I think it's safe to say that it's one of JavaScript's many small 
warts.

The closest analogy with the case at hand is the 
toLower/toLowerCase functions. It would be unfortunate if we were 
to have such warts in D, so I think we should at least not 
outright reject PRs which fix them.
Jun 20 2015
next sibling parent "Philpax" <me philpax.me> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 Naming things

       There are only two hard things
       in Computer Science: cache
       invalidation and naming things.
       -- Phil Karlton

 Hello,

 There has been a lot of recent debate regarding the names of 
 some new functions recently added to Phobos.
 ...
I'd like to note my support for consistent/standardized naming (especially with regards to `withExtension`/`setExt`). As an end-user of D, it's very important to me that a precedent be set for naming prior to D releases - it means less time spent upfront perusing documentation, and less time spent trying to understand how a particular function works. When I'm viewing code "in the wild," so to speak, time spent trying to understand byzantine names is time wasted. In this particular case, `withExtension` is objectively better than `setExt.` The `with` prefix indicates lazy operation - this is a much better cue as to the function's operation than the truncation of an already-existing name. Truncating the name will, without a doubt, lead to user confusion: these two functions have the same goal, but operate in fundamentally different ways, and the name should reflect this. The alphanumerical sorting argument has little validity, especially seeing as the "See Also" section serves the same purpose. I understand that the community's been beset with naming discussions for the longest of times - and yes, they can often be non-productive - but there are some cases in which it is very much worth the time choosing a better name. `setExt` is objectively confusing and uncommunicative of its actual functionality - and it can be fixed now, before it becomes a permanent wart. As a final note, naming conventions are very important for the end-user of a programming language. If one goes with a 'pick the first name that works' approach, the result is a very unproductive, contradictory language; an extreme example of this can be seen in PHP, where programmers often have to consult the documentation for *every* function to find the correct name for every function. We have the ability to prevent that from happening here.
Jun 20 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent "ketmar" <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 I would like to present a very similar case in another 
 language, JavaScript.

 The String method has two functions with a similar name and 
 functionality: "substr" and "substring". If you were to search 
 the web, you can find a multitude of confusion over these 
 functions:
but see how you will hit some of that links by searching for javascript substr or something like it! what that gives is more popularity: everyone wants to write an article for such a hot, yet easy topic. thus, having the same naming in D inevitably leads to more articles about D, and to increased popularity!
Jun 20 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 6/20/15 5:27 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Naming things

        There are only two hard things
        in Computer Science: cache
        invalidation and naming things.
        -- Phil Karlton
I think the issue we are struggling with here is that: abbreviate -> abbreviated This makes some sense. However, the past participle of "set" is "set". So "set the extension" -> "a set extension" doesn't work, because "set" doesn't change. Our enemy here is the English language :) If the original was named something like "modifyExt", then "modifiedExt" would be fine. And my understanding of the pushback from Walter about renaming really has to do with avoiding breaking code for the sake of renaming. At this point (before setExtension has ever been released), it's "what is the best name". No code should be broken, the renaming objection shouldn't apply. I'm 100% in favor of not having both setExt and setExtension to mean different but similar things. withExt seems better, and reasonably informative. path.withExt("abc") -> "use this path, but with extension '.abc'" And 'with' doesn't work with every possible updated version, we have to work around the quirks of English here. But really, the egregious error is the slightly different yet identical names. It's like having setExt and set_ext mean different things. This also reminds me of std.regex vs. std.regexp. I never knew which one was the "new" version. If there is some other idea besides setExtension (or some prefix of that), I think we should go with that. We could use some analog to 'set', like 'modifiedExt' or 'changedExt' if that sounds better. It just shouldn't be the same exact name, with differing levels of abbreviation. -Steve
Jun 20 2015
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 18:46:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
 I think the issue we are struggling with here is that:

 abbreviate -> abbreviated

 This makes some sense. However, the past participle of "set" is 
 "set".

 So "set the extension" -> "a set extension" doesn't work, 
 because "set" doesn't change. Our enemy here is the English 
 language :)

 If the original was named something like "modifyExt", then 
 "modifiedExt" would be fine.
I would understand that if it was part of a consistent pattern for new names. However, judging by toLower/toLowerCase, there is none - and, if I understand Walter Bright's argument correctly, he argues that since we were not consistent in naming when creating std.algorithm, there is no reason to be consistent about it now.
 And my understanding of the pushback from Walter about renaming 
 really has to do with avoiding breaking code for the sake of 
 renaming. At this point (before setExtension has ever been 
 released), it's "what is the best name". No code should be 
 broken, the renaming objection shouldn't apply. I'm 100% in 
 favor of not having both setExt and setExtension to mean 
 different but similar things.
Just to clarify, it's still not too late to rename setExt.
 And 'with' doesn't work with every possible updated version, we 
 have to work around the quirks of English here.
I think just using different verbs/prepositions would work. For example, "asLowerCase".
 But really, the egregious error is the slightly different yet 
 identical names. It's like having setExt and set_ext mean 
 different things. This also reminds me of std.regex vs. 
 std.regexp. I never knew which one was the "new" version.
At least that was temporary. This is going to be set in stone once 2.068 rolls out.
Jun 20 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/20/2015 05:27 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 [...]
+1kazillion
Jun 20 2015
parent "kinke" <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 20:43:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 06/20/2015 05:27 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 [...]
+1kazillion
+1 ;)
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Mike" <none none.com> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:

 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, 
 and toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same 
 functionality, but one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. 
 Can you guess which is which?
Yikes! That should have never passed scrutiny in the pull request. I'm sorry I didn't see it, as I would have voiced opposition to it. I only just started monitoring Phobos this week. My work doesn't really require me to use Phobos much.
 It would be unfortunate if we were to have such warts in D, so 
 I think we should at least not outright reject PRs which fix 
 them.
I totally agree. I was really excited about D a year and a half ago, and what really lit my fire was Andrei's talk about "Operational Professionalism" at DConf 2013. At that time, I thought, "Wow, this community really cares about getting things right". How naive of me :) But, I'm still here...perhaps foolishly. It makes me disappointed to see contributions that dot the 'i's and cross the 't's get turned away and belittled. But, I don't think there's anything I can do about it, and although you've made an excellent argument, I've gathered enough wisdom in my time here to make a reasonable prediction of the outcome. I also believe the relatively little response you've received in this thread is likely not an indication that few care, or that few support your argument, but rather that they've seen it before, and they know how it ends. Mike
Jun 22 2015
next sibling parent reply Rikki Cattermole <alphaglosined gmail.com> writes:
On 22/06/2015 7:17 p.m., Mike wrote:
 On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, and
 toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same functionality, but
 one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. Can you guess which is
 which?
Yikes! That should have never passed scrutiny in the pull request. I'm sorry I didn't see it, as I would have voiced opposition to it. I only just started monitoring Phobos this week. My work doesn't really require me to use Phobos much.
 It would be unfortunate if we were to have such warts in D, so I think
 we should at least not outright reject PRs which fix them.
I totally agree. I was really excited about D a year and a half ago, and what really lit my fire was Andrei's talk about "Operational Professionalism" at DConf 2013. At that time, I thought, "Wow, this community really cares about getting things right". How naive of me :) But, I'm still here...perhaps foolishly. It makes me disappointed to see contributions that dot the 'i's and cross the 't's get turned away and belittled. But, I don't think there's anything I can do about it, and although you've made an excellent argument, I've gathered enough wisdom in my time here to make a reasonable prediction of the outcome. I also believe the relatively little response you've received in this thread is likely not an indication that few care, or that few support your argument, but rather that they've seen it before, and they know how it ends. Mike
I haven't commented yet but you have half hit a nerve for me. Okay so, I'm in agreement about the point being made 100%. But there isn't really anything I can _do_ about it. I don't really review Phobos PR's. Just a thought, add a checklist to CONTRIBUTING.md on Github and have this as one of them for function/method names. It probably just slipped peoples minds. Problem solved.
Jun 22 2015
parent "Mike" <none none.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 07:25:19 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:

 But there isn't really anything I can _do_ about it.
See the sentence before that.
 I don't really review Phobos PR's.
That's not at all what I said.
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling parent "bachmeier" <no spam.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 07:17:56 UTC, Mike wrote:
 It makes me disappointed to see contributions that dot the 'i's 
 and cross the 't's get turned away and belittled.  But, I don't 
 think there's anything I can do about it, and although you've 
 made an excellent argument, I've gathered enough wisdom in my 
 time here to make a reasonable prediction of the outcome.  I 
 also believe the relatively little response you've received in 
 this thread is likely not an indication that few care, or that 
 few support your argument, but rather that they've seen it 
 before, and they know how it ends.
I agree with this, and given all the complaints by the leadership about lack of contribution, it's shocking to see the same individuals constantly putting down the work of others as not being of sufficient importance.
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent "Mike" <none none.com> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, 
 and toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same 
 functionality, but one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. 
 Can you guess which is which?
I've taken a look at the offending PR (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3370). Unfortunately, it was only up for review for about a day before it was merged, and only one person commented on it before it was merged. Given that some PRs are currently rotting for months, I hate to say that PRs should remain open for a minimum amount of time, but that's what I'm saying. We're all very busy, so give PRs a few days for reviewers to get to them. IMO, that PR should have never passed scrutiny, and probably wouldn't have if it was given a little more time. Mike
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, 
 and toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same 
 functionality, but one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. 
 Can you guess which is which
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "the shorter one is lazy", but that presumes I'd notice there were two nearly-identical functions in the first place and pick up on the not-well-conveyed implication that one is lazy and the other is not. That's a Bad Thing. And it's a bad thing everyone seems to be tip-toeing around, too. None of the suggestions I've seen so far really call out to me "hey, this is lazy and has a non-lazy counterpart". Would it be so wrong to add "lazy" to the beginning or end so it's super obvious at a glance with zero cognitive overhead? -Wyatt
Jun 22 2015
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 11:45:31 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
 On Saturday, 20 June 2015 at 09:27:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
 wrote:
 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, 
 and toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same 
 functionality, but one of them is eager, and the other is 
 lazy. Can you guess which is which
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "the shorter one is lazy", but that presumes I'd notice there were two nearly-identical functions in the first place and pick up on the not-well-conveyed implication that one is lazy and the other is not.
Well, you'd be wrong. Although setExt is the lazy version of setExtension, toLowerCase is the lazy version toLower. Who needs consistency, eh?
 And it's a bad thing everyone seems to be tip-toeing around, 
 too.
  None of the suggestions I've seen so far really call out to me 
 "hey, this is lazy and has a non-lazy counterpart".  Would it 
 be so wrong to add "lazy" to the beginning or end so it's super 
 obvious at a glance with zero cognitive overhead?
Just to reiterate, I want to stress that finding a perfect name is of secondary concern to deciding to change the name in the first place. A big part of the argument against renaming things is "look how much debate there is about what it should be called, it's obvious there is no consensus, let's just leave things as they are".
Jun 22 2015
parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 11:51:27 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Just to reiterate, I want to stress that finding a perfect name 
 is of secondary concern to deciding to change the name in the 
 first place. A big part of the argument against renaming things 
 is "look how much debate there is about what it should be 
 called, it's obvious there is no consensus, let's just leave 
 things as they are".
I think that it's abundantly clear that the names are not well chosen. It's a guarantee that you're going to have to look at the docs to have any clue as to which is lazy and which isn't. I completely agree with adding lazy versions of the functions like Walter is doing, and our naming situation sucks on some level given that we have never named things based on whether they were lazy or not, and so there really is no way that all of the names in Phobos are going to be consistent in that manner (not without breaking more code than we're willing to break anyway), but the new names do seem particularly bad. A function that starts with set doesn't even sound like it's lazy anyway - not to mention, wasn't setExt the old function that std.path had before it was revamped? Naming stuff is hard, but there is definitely a cost to poor names, which is something that Walter rarely seems to acknowledge, especially if it means changing an existing name - but since this is about functions that haven't even been released yet, I wouldn't think that it would be as big a deal to change them. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 22 2015
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 14:09:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 Naming stuff is hard, but there is definitely a cost to poor 
 names, which is something that Walter rarely seems to 
 acknowledge, especially if it means changing an existing name - 
 but since this is about functions that haven't even been 
 released yet, I wouldn't think that it would be as big a deal 
 to change them.
It seems everyone in this thread is in agreement, so what would be the next step? It is a time-sensitive matter as preparations for 2.068's release are already underway. After two pings I failed to engage Walter Bright in this conversation; I don't think I should just reopen my pull request a second time, and I fear that if I merge someone else's pull request, I just might get my commit privileges revoked :)
Jun 22 2015
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/22/2015 7:22 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 It seems everyone in this thread is in agreement, so what would be the next
 step? It is a time-sensitive matter as preparations for 2.068's release are
 already underway. After two pings I failed to engage Walter Bright in this
 conversation; I don't think I should just reopen my pull request a second time,
 and
I've been reading these things, but not engaging in them because it seemed best to let everyone have their say without interference from me.
 I fear that if I merge someone else's pull request, I just might get my
 commit privileges revoked :)
I don't know where I get this terrible reputation - I've never revoked anyone's commit privileges. And certainly not yours - your track record of contributions and positive influence on D is impeccable.
Jun 22 2015
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 19:43:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/22/2015 7:22 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 It seems everyone in this thread is in agreement, so what 
 would be the next
 step? It is a time-sensitive matter as preparations for 
 2.068's release are
 already underway. After two pings I failed to engage Walter 
 Bright in this
 conversation; I don't think I should just reopen my pull 
 request a second time,
 and
I've been reading these things, but not engaging in them because it seemed best to let everyone have their say without interference from me.
Thanks. I followed up on the proposal from yesterday's IRC discussion with Andrei: http://forum.dlang.org/post/rvaguhviuldknnqktkbq forum.dlang.org
 I fear that if I merge someone else's pull request, I just
might get my
 commit privileges revoked :)
I don't know where I get this terrible reputation - I've never revoked anyone's commit privileges. And certainly not yours - your track record of contributions and positive influence on D is impeccable.
Ah, thank you, and sorry about that - it was a joke regarding last week's events...
Jun 23 2015
prev sibling parent "John Chapman" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 11:45:31 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
  None of the suggestions I've seen so far really call out to me 
 "hey, this is lazy and has a non-lazy counterpart".  Would it 
 be so wrong to add "lazy" to the beginning or end so it's super 
 obvious at a glance with zero cognitive overhead?

 -Wyatt
This would be my preferred option. When C# introduced asynchronous counterparts of existing methods, they appended "Async" to the names, which seems to have worked out well - eg, Wait/WaitAsync, Read/ReadAsync. So we'd have setExtension/setExtensionLazy etc.
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kelet" <kelethunter gmail.com> writes:
I agree with Vladimir --

There should be a naming convention for identifying whether a 
function is eager or lazy. Learning a naming convention once and 
applying it repeatedly is a better process than repeatedly 
referencing documentation.

A programming language should have built-in functionality that is 
named in such a way that it clearly expresses its intent. For 
newbies, it can be very off-putting to be introduced to a 
language where this is not the case. Perhaps some veterans of the 
D language can't clearly see this.

There is no good reason that the new introduction of built-ins 
should not follow a well-defined naming scheme. I'd actually go a 
bit further and deprecate old functions that do not meet the 
scheme and phase them out over time.

Bikeshedding is arguing over trivial naming schemes. Choosing to 
adhere to a naming scheme is not bikeshedding, IMHO.

Thanks,
Jun 22 2015
parent "Joseph Cassman" <jc7919 outlook.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 16:06:33 UTC, Kelet wrote:
 I agree with Vladimir --

 There should be a naming convention for identifying whether a 
 function is eager or lazy. Learning a naming convention once 
 and applying it repeatedly is a better process than repeatedly 
 referencing documentation.

 A programming language should have built-in functionality that 
 is named in such a way that it clearly expresses its intent. 
 For newbies, it can be very off-putting to be introduced to a 
 language where this is not the case. Perhaps some veterans of 
 the D language can't clearly see this.

 There is no good reason that the new introduction of built-ins 
 should not follow a well-defined naming scheme. I'd actually go 
 a bit further and deprecate old functions that do not meet the 
 scheme and phase them out over time.

 Bikeshedding is arguing over trivial naming schemes. Choosing 
 to adhere to a naming scheme is not bikeshedding, IMHO.

 Thanks,
Well put. I don't like how often I have to refer to the documentation. And I have been trying to use D for a while. A naming convention expressing intent should reduce the need for frequenting the documentation. This would be a welcome addition. Even at the cost of dusruptive change. Joseph
Jun 22 2015
prev sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <bruno.do.medeiros+dng gmail.com> writes:
On 20/06/2015 10:27, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Naming things

        There are only two hard things
        in Computer Science: cache
        invalidation and naming things.
        -- Phil Karlton

 Hello,

 There has been a lot of recent debate regarding the names of some new
 functions recently added to Phobos.

 Mostly this concerns the good work of Walter Bright, and new functions
 which operate on ranges rather than strings.

 A few times, many people felt that the names could have been chosen
 better - in some cases, much better. This is not a singular occurrence,
 but a recurrent one:

 http://forum.dlang.org/post/ybbwpgmgsqvmbvoqhmxm forum.dlang.org
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2149#issuecomment-42867964


 So far, post-merge name changes have been rejected:

 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3243
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3426

 Two examples of controversial name pairs: setExt/setExtension, and
 toLower/toLowerCase. These functions have the same functionality, but
 one of them is eager, and the other is lazy. Can you guess which is which?
Can I guess which is which? I wouldn't guess, I would just look at the doc to figure it out! Think opening up a browser and looking up the function doc online is cumbersome/annoying? You're right, so just use an IDE that shows the DDoc of the function during code completion. Problem trivially solved. (Both DDT and Mono-D support this functionality)
 I would like to present a very similar case in another language,
 JavaScript.

 The String method has two functions with a similar name and
 functionality: "substr" and "substring". If you were to search the web,
 you can find a multitude of confusion over these functions:

 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3745515/what-is-the-difference-between-substr-and-substring

 https://nathanhoad.net/javascript-difference-between-substr-and-substring
 http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2013/08/difference-between-substr-vs-substring-in-JavaScript-tutorial-example.html

 https://rapd.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/javascript-substr-vs-substring/
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAameXW5r10

 I think it's safe to say that it's one of JavaScript's many small warts.
Javascript doesn't have a Javadoc/DDoc analogue, does it? So, not applicable. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Jun 24 2015