Re: Naming conventions

On 2024-10-13 09:27, dxf wrote:

On 13/10/2024 3:10 pm, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-10-13 06:59, dxf wrote:

On 13/10/2024 1:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-10-13 05:13, dxf wrote:

On 13/10/2024 12:54 am, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-10-12 05:45, dxf wrote:

The basics:
>
: .BAD ( -- )  cr ." Invalid item"  .abort ;
>
: ZE? ( x -- )  if .bad then ;     \ abort if non-zero
: NZ? ( x -- )  0= ze? ;           \ abort if zero

>
Typically, if word name ends with a question mark, the first (top) output parameter of the word is a *flag*. And it's true for all standard words. (though, opposite is not true)

>
It's rather similar.
>
ZE? NZ?  destructively tests TOS

>
But these words do not return a flag in the first output parameter. So, their names violate the common convention.

>
Conventions are a guide.  Thankfully they're not yet a law.
>

>
Sure. But the mentioned conventions seem good.
>
If you are proposing generally useful words, and their names violate a common convention, you could probably explain why it is not worth following that convention in this case (or in general).

 Convention means doing something in a consistent way unless there's a reason to do
otherwise. 

And what is your reason?

The standard had no qualms defining the word ? which leaves no flag.

The word `?` in the standard can be explained by a historical accident that occurred in ancient times. Moreover, this word is almost not used in programs.
Your case cannot be explained by a historical accident ;)

I don't feel any less entitled coming up with names that are short and to the point.

Feelings are not the best argument regarding names and conventions ;)
--
Ruvim