On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:04 PM Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:
On 02.05.2020 17:18, João Távora wrote:
> As Philippe himself has pointed out, there's the trade-off between
> convey information and a long-a$$ name, for example. So we
> _can_  use that as argument, in the opposite part of the spectrum.
> I for one think that expecting names to tell us everything, or
> even a lot, is naive, a losing battle.  And, yes, naming_is_  hard
> it's one of the 2 hard ones along with cache invalidation and
> off-by-one.

Can we agree, though, that 'concat' and 'append' are too far from the
"long-a🐍🐍" end of the spectrum?

I hesitate to propose a renaming because there's a lot of history, but
just having a string-concat alias could improve the situation.

Sure I'd agree to that.  (though maybe its rather concat-to-string hehehe).
That's quite different from adding a zillion new s- words because clojure,
tho.

My position is: work on the manual.  Make it prettier, better organized, etc.
Parsimoniously add new names if that really helps.

João