What's the best name for a non-mutating “add” method on an immutable collection?

前端 未结 30 1295
夕颜
夕颜 2020-11-29 16:47

Sorry for the waffly title - if I could come up with a concise title, I wouldn\'t have to ask the question.

Suppose I have an immutable list type. It has an operat

30条回答
  •  星月不相逢
    2020-11-29 17:35

    I'd go with Cons, for one simple reason: it means exactly what you want it to.

    1. I'm a huge fan of saying exactly what I mean, especially in source code. A newbie will have to look up the definition of Cons only once, but then read and use that a thousand times. I find that, in the long term, it's nicer to work with systems that make the common case easier, even if the up-front cost is a little bit higher.

    2. The fact that it would be "meaningless" to people with no FP experience is actually a big advantage. As you pointed out, all of the other words you found already have some meaning, and that meaning is either slightly different or ambiguous. A new concept should have a new word (or in this case, an old one). I'd rather somebody have to look up the definition of Cons, than to assume incorrectly he knows what Add does.

    3. Other operations borrowed from functional languages often keep their original names, with no apparent catastrophes. I haven't seen any push to come up with synonyms for "map" and "reduce" that sound more familiar to non-FPers, nor do I see any benefit from doing so.

    (Full disclosure: I'm a Lisp programmer, so I already know what Cons means.)

提交回复
热议问题