Mirror of forum.nim-lang.org

2518 :: Different naming schemes for buffers in I/O

• vega (orginal) [2016-09-06T04:54:16+02:00] view original

  While working on PR https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/pull/4683, I found some different naming schemes in I/O while working with buffers. For example:

  • readBuffer/writeBuffer in system.nim, asyncfile.nim (from PR)
  • recv/send in net.nim
  • recvInto/send in asyncdispatch.nim, asyncnet.nim (from PR, see https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/pull/4683#issuecomment-244782731)
  • readData/writeData in streams.nim

  Are you OK with that? Maybe we can reach consensus with these names before 1.0 is out? I think that it's better to have one scheme for them, for example: readBuffer/writeBuffer and recvBuffer/sendBuffer. What do you think about it?

---

• bpr (orginal) [2016-09-06T17:00:26+02:00] view original

  Of the options you presented, I prefer recv/send or read/write. I understand appending Buffer or Stream to the verb if a valuable difference in meaning is intended, but appending Data or Into/From are really redundant.

  Of course, the backward compatibility issue may make doing the right thing hard. It would be nice to achieve consistency before 1.0; the point of a 1.0 is that backward compatibility should become way more important than achieving better names.

---

• dom96 (orginal) [2016-09-06T20:39:03+02:00] view original

  Of course, the backward compatibility issue may make doing the right thing hard.

  This shouldn't be a worry while we are still pre-1.0. We need to break these things while we still have a chance to.

---

• Krux02 (orginal) [2016-09-07T05:40:58+02:00] view original

  Luckily there is a deprecation mechanism. This is something that works nicely here, changing the behaviour without changing the name would be more complicated.

---