On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
Names are important. I think this discussion would make more progress if Dean's "string" were given another name, like "bytes," and his "view" were named "string" or perhaps "string_view."
Okay, I think I have to divorce the thought of "what a string should be" from the name "string". I like `bytes` but unfortunately it somehow implicitly conveys mutability -- because computers keep reading and writing bytes after all. Maybe a name that denotes immutability would be good.
"bytes" conveys mutability no more nor less than does "string."
Right. And it's 5 letters too. :D
So for lack of a more creative name, I'll call it `istring` which conveys immutability and string semantics.
That's short, but not descriptive. The "i" prefix is more suggestive of "interface" than "immutable" to me. Why not just go whole hog and call it "immutable_string" as Artyom suggested?
The only objection really is that it's too long. :D Less characters is better. /me gets a thesaurus and looks up string :D -- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris