Re: linked list rewrite

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> >> Tom objected to changing the names:
>
> > I agree a renaming of list functions is good. If we had kept the
> > original Berkeley code as-is, we would have a lot fewer developers
> > today. :-) Making drastic cleanups is often worthwile.
>
> I would be satisfied if we kept the names of the core,
> most-commonly-used functions the same. I would put lfirst, lnext,
> lcons, lappend, length, maybe member into the category of names
> I don't want to change. Attaching "_int" and "_oid" to those for the
> related functions is okay.
>
> If we go in that direction then the common prefix would be just "l"
> and not "list_", which seems a good idea to me on grounds of brevity.
> Looking over Neil's proposal again, one of the things that bugged me
> about it was that the function names were overly verbose. That's okay
> for stuff you don't see often, but the common list functions are *all
> over* the backend. You can't really claim that developers will be
> unfamiliar with them. Making those names longer won't buy us anything
> except sooner onset of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Agreed. Sounds like a plan.

What does the 'n' stand for in ncons? I also felt that lcons
(construct) and nconc(concat) were too similarly named.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073