Sequence -> Seq

[Stepan Koltsov]

Hi.

Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

Seq is used very frequently (at least in my code), and "Sequence" is
too long word. I've counted symbols in my mysql-diff program using the
script:

find . -name '*.scala' | xargs cat | awk '{ split($0, a, "[
.(){},:!=+~<>\\[\\]-]"); for (x in a) { print a[x]; } }' | egrep
'^[A-Z]' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n

Most frequently used scala library classes are:

445 String
300 Seq  <-- it is
198 Some
142 None
95 List
89 Option
45 ArrayBuffer <-- that's why I think ArrayBuffer should be aliased in Predef
36 Int
34 Any
28 Boolean

and method "toSequence" should be renamed to "toSeq".

My 2 cents.

S.

[odd.moller]

I disagree. While I can understand the strive to have short and easily writable names, I believe the added clarity is well worth the extra characters in this case.
Now let's see what can be done about Int...

Greetings
Odd Möller

-----Original Message-----
From: stepancheg@... [mailto:stepancheg@...] On Behalf Of Stepan Koltsov
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:39 PM
To: scala-debate
Subject: [scala-debate] Sequence -> Seq

Hi.

Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

Seq is used very frequently (at least in my code), and "Sequence" is
too long word. I've counted symbols in my mysql-diff program using the
script:

find . -name '*.scala' | xargs cat | awk '{ split($0, a, "[
.(){},:!=+~<>\\[\\]-]"); for (x in a) { print a[x]; } }' | egrep
'^[A-Z]' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n

Most frequently used scala library classes are:

445 String
300 Seq  <-- it is
198 Some
142 None
95 List
89 Option
45 ArrayBuffer <-- that's why I think ArrayBuffer should be aliased in Predef
36 Int
34 Any
28 Boolean

and method "toSequence" should be renamed to "toSeq".

My 2 cents.

S.

[Stepan Koltsov]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 21:59, Odd Möller <odd.moller@...> wrote:
> I disagree. While I can understand the strive to have short and easily writable names, I believe the added clarity is well worth the extra characters in this case.

Seq is an obvious shortening for Sequence, there is no big loss of
clarity, like there no one in Predef for Predefined, Elem for Element
and io.Source for io.SourceOfCharacters.

> Now let's see what can be done about Int...

Int is a good example of what is done properly: Integer shortened to Int.

S.

> Greetings
> Odd Möller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stepancheg@... [mailto:stepancheg@...] On Behalf Of Stepan Koltsov
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:39 PM
> To: scala-debate
> Subject: [scala-debate] Sequence -> Seq
>
> Hi.
>
> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?
>
> Seq is used very frequently (at least in my code), and "Sequence" is
> too long word. I've counted symbols in my mysql-diff program using the
> script:
>
> find . -name '*.scala' | xargs cat | awk '{ split($0, a, "[
> .(){},:!=+~<>\\[\\]-]"); for (x in a) { print a[x]; } }' | egrep
> '^[A-Z]' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
>
> Most frequently used scala library classes are:
>
> 445 String
> 300 Seq  <-- it is
> 198 Some
> 142 None
> 95 List
> 89 Option
> 45 ArrayBuffer <-- that's why I think ArrayBuffer should be aliased in Predef
> 36 Int
> 34 Any
> 28 Boolean
>
> and method "toSequence" should be renamed to "toSeq".
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> S.
>

[Ismael Juma]

Stepan Koltsov <yozh <at> mx1.ru> writes:
> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.

Best,
Ismael

[Erik Engbrecht]

+1

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ismael Juma <mlists@...> wrote:

Stepan Koltsov <yozh <at> mx1.ru> writes:
> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.

Best,
Ismael

--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

[Bryan Germann]

I too prefer Seq.

--Bryan

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Erik Engbrecht
<erik.engbrecht@...> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ismael Juma <mlists@...> wrote:
>>
>> Stepan Koltsov <yozh <at> mx1.ru> writes:
>> > Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?
>>
>> For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ismael
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/
>

[bearfeeder]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Ismael Juma <mlists@...> wrote:

Stepan Koltsov <yozh <at> mx1.ru> writes:
> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.

+1
 

Best,
Ismael

--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Git some: http://github.com/dpp

[Andrew Gaydenko]

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 22:15:35 Ismael Juma wrote:
> Stepan Koltsov <yozh <at> mx1.ru> writes:
> > Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?
>
> For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.
>
> Best,
> Ismael
>

Am next here!

(as well toSeq instead of toSequence; Bool is also better rather Boolean, but
at this case it is too late to deprecate, probably)

[Seth Tisue]

>>>>> "Ismael" == Ismael Juma <mlists@...> writes:

 >> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

 Ismael> For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.

Me too.  (I've been baffled by the change ever since it happened.)

--
Seth Tisue @ Northwestern University / http://tisue.net
lead developer, NetLogo: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

[Randall Schulz]

On Tuesday September 22 2009, Stepan Koltsov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?

And now for something completely different!

Nah. I prefer Seq.


RRS

[Stepan Koltsov-5]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 22:28, Seth Tisue <seth@...> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ismael" == Ismael Juma <mlists@...> writes:
>
>  >> Shouldn't Sequence be renamed to Seq until it is too late?
>
>  Ismael> For whatever it's worth, I like Seq better too.
>
> Me too.  (I've been baffled by the change ever since it happened.)

Well, it is not a big change. Seq alias still exists in "scala"
package. But the real class name is Sequence.

However Iterable.toSeq method is deprecated in favor of toSequence.

S.

[Nils Kilden-Pedersen]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Stepan Koltsov <yozh@...> wrote:

Int is a good example of what is done properly: Integer shortened to Int.

Agreed. Now if we could only rename BigDecimal to just Decimal...

[Erik Engbrecht]

+5 to that...the BigX class names are just annoying...

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nils Kilden-Pedersen <nilskp@...> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Stepan Koltsov <yozh@...> wrote:

Int is a good example of what is done properly: Integer shortened to Int.

Agreed. Now if we could only rename BigDecimal to just Decimal...

--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

[Paul Phillips-3]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:17:25PM -0500, Nils Kilden-Pedersen wrote:
> Agreed. Now if we could only rename BigDecimal to just Decimal...

I would like to do this actually, I just hadn't gotten around to
bringing it up.  Martin, can I have a thumbs up or down on renaming
scala.BigDecimal to scala.Decimal and deprecating the Big one?

--
Paul Phillips      | The important thing here is that the music is not in
Everyman           | the piano.  And knowledge and edification is not in the
Empiricist         | computer.  The computer is simply an instrument whose
ha! spill, pupil   | music is ideas.  -- Alan Kay

[Erik Engbrecht]

Can we change BigInt to Integer, too?

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Paul Phillips <paulp@...> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:17:25PM -0500, Nils Kilden-Pedersen wrote:
> Agreed. Now if we could only rename BigDecimal to just Decimal...

I would like to do this actually, I just hadn't gotten around to
bringing it up.  Martin, can I have a thumbs up or down on renaming
scala.BigDecimal to scala.Decimal and deprecating the Big one?

--
Paul Phillips      | The important thing here is that the music is not in
Everyman           | the piano.  And knowledge and edification is not in the
Empiricist         | computer.  The computer is simply an instrument whose
ha! spill, pupil   | music is ideas.  -- Alan Kay

--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

[Nils Kilden-Pedersen]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@...> wrote:

Can we change BigInt to Integer, too?

That's probably too confusing. Unlike BigDecimal, there is a class without the Big.

[Erik Engbrecht]

It wouldn't be if we had Int32 and Int64 instead of Int and Long....  ;-)

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Nils Kilden-Pedersen <nilskp@...> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Erik Engbrecht <erik.engbrecht@...> wrote:

Can we change BigInt to Integer, too?

That's probably too confusing. Unlike BigDecimal, there is a class without the Big.

--
http://erikengbrecht.blogspot.com/

[Andrew Gaydenko]

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 23:37:26 Erik Engbrecht wrote:
> It wouldn't be if we had Int32 and Int64 instead of Int and Long....  ;-)

Here I agree with Nils: for me Interger isn't too obvious at presence of Int.


>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Nils Kilden-Pedersen
<nilskp@...>wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Erik Engbrecht
<erik.engbrecht@...>wrote:
> >> Can we change BigInt to Integer, too?
> >
> > That's probably too confusing. Unlike BigDecimal, there is a class
> > without the Big.
>

[Kevin Wright-4]

While we're at it... Is anyone up for renaming mkString to makeString?

:)

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Gaydenko <a@...> wrote:

On Tuesday 22 September 2009 23:37:26 Erik Engbrecht wrote:
> It wouldn't be if we had Int32 and Int64 instead of Int and Long....  ;-)

Here I agree with Nils: for me Interger isn't too obvious at presence of Int.

>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Nils Kilden-Pedersen
<nilskp@...>wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Erik Engbrecht
<erik.engbrecht@...>wrote:
> >> Can we change BigInt to Integer, too?
> >
> > That's probably too confusing. Unlike BigDecimal, there is a class
> > without the Big.
>

[Nils Kilden-Pedersen]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wright@...> wrote:

While we're at it... Is anyone up for renaming mkString to makeString?

Now that would just be gratuitous.