There are many function and module names that have doubtful names. If you've got some comments on some names, like how the same or similar functions are named in other languages or ideas on how they could be named for more consistency, please tell.
This list of doubtful names is not exhaustive.
map_with_tail
but have the tail-taking function be named rest
?FORCE
from FP::Lazy
be renamed to Force
to avoid the potential conflict with use PXML::Tags 'force'
?PXML
to FXML (functional XML)?array_to_hash_group_by
compose_1side
pxml_map_elements_exhaustively
stream_iota
be renamed or have different arguments? Compare with APL etc. Also stream_range
, stream_step_range
.FP::Repl::WithRepl
, WithRepl_eval
, FP::Repl::Trap
FP::Struct
: rename to FP::Class
or should that name remain reserved for a new implementation on top of Moose
or something?null
always be used, including instead of empty_trie
etc. (i.e. rename those to null_trie
etc.)?poptionally
in FP::Optional
flip2of3
, rot3right
, rot3left
in FP::Combinators
Also:
maybe_
or perhaps_
if it's not signaling exceptions? E.g. Clojure uses lineseq
and implies exceptions: should we use such "nice and short" names, too? This one looks a bit too short, file_lines
may be more like it. And imply exceptions? Or is it still worthwhile to remind that there are cases in rather normal execution that throw exceptions? (Also, xopen etc. are special since there the x is necessary to differentiate from the x-less builtin of the same name.)