On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 12:44 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that
> "pure" 
> isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is that it 
> doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information 
> rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without further 
> hints. I'm not sure any single English word would be as descriptive as
> I'd like.

As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.

There are also quite a few synonyms in the thesaurus for trustworthy.  I
kind of like "honorable" or "righteous" myself.

__
Marc

On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 12:44 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that
>> "pure"
>> isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is that it
>> doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information
>> rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without further
>> hints. I'm not sure any single English word would be as descriptive as
>> I'd like.
> As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
> how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.

I also made this suggestion later in the day.

>
> There are also quite a few synonyms in the thesaurus for trustworthy.  I
> kind of like "honorable" or "righteous" myself.
>

Let's not go there.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
>> As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
>> how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.

> I also made this suggestion later in the day.

SILENT isn't a bad idea.  It seems to lead the mind in the right
direction, or at least not encourage people to guess the wrong meaning.

			regards, tom lane

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
>>> As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
>>> how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.
>
>> I also made this suggestion later in the day.
>
> SILENT isn't a bad idea.  It seems to lead the mind in the right
> direction, or at least not encourage people to guess the wrong meaning.

TACITURN.  UNLOQUACIOUS.  TIGHTLIPPED.  LACONIC.

OK, OK, I'm joking...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 06:30:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > On 02/22/2012 04:29 PM, Marc Munro wrote:
> >> As the developer of veil I feel marginally qualified to bikeshed here:
> >> how about "silent"?  A silent function being one that will not blab.
> 
> > I also made this suggestion later in the day.
> 
> SILENT isn't a bad idea.  It seems to lead the mind in the right
> direction, or at least not encourage people to guess the wrong meaning.

+1 for SILENT.  I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET; it comes closer
than SILENT to denoting the property in question, but it also carries a social
undertone that feels out of place in a software function declaration.

On fre, 2012-02-24 at 23:00 -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET

That would probably create too much confusion with "discrete".

On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>> I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET
> 
> That would probably create too much confusion with "discrete".

SECRETE?

David

2012/2/27 David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>:
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>>> I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET
>>
>> That would probably create too much confusion with "discrete".
>
> SECRETE?

next one

MUTE ?

Regards

Pavel

>
> David
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>>> I also liked Kevin's suggestion of DISCREET
>>
>> That would probably create too much confusion with "discrete".
>
> SECRETE?

BOUND?  GAGGED?
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"