[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
name for SEFTable
- To: <mark>
- Subject: name for SEFTable
- From: Eric Dean Tribble <tribble>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 89 22:46:28 PDT
- Cc: <xtech>
- In-reply-to: <MarkS.Miller'smessageofTue>,17 PDT <8910250523.AA27619@xanadu>
Shouldn't that be spelled "ConsTable"?
No. I like ConstTable.
Replaying our latter phone
conversation, it is interesting to note that C++'s (and ANSI C's?)
"const" corresponds to our ScruX, not our ImmuX. I like ScruX better
that ConsX for two reasons: ConsX will cause some readers to think it
has something to do with cons-cells
Not if we used ConstTable (since this is C++.
(note that we can't say ConstX,
because that isn't symmetrical with our other names),
Nonsense. Consistency is the hobgoblin of overworked designers.
and we aren't using C++'s "const" on the declarations. Using C++'s "const"
promiscuously is something that we should eventually consider, but it
is something that has to be done "all at once" across the code. It is
VERY painful to try to introduce "const" incrementally.
If we can agree that the semantics of ConstTables does in fact
parallel the const declaration, then let's use it! Especially since
we will add that behavior later. (For a class to deserve the name
const, all member functions defined for it should be declared