rename the clone function

[JeffBezanson]

clone doesn't clone, it makes new empty containers. Here are some ideas for new names:

make_new, make, create, alloc, construct

This function is part of the collections interface; for any collection X, name_me(X) gives a new container similar to X.

What to call the thing?

[StefanKarpinski]

It's a bit verbose, but maybe new_similar or just similar? Of the above candidates, the one I like the most is alloc because it reminds me of malloc and that's basically what it does (sort of).

[zingales]

What about just new?

Giuseppe

On Jun 17, 2011, at 22:47, JeffBezanson
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

clone doesn't clone, it makes new empty containers. Here are some ideas for new names:

make_new, make, create, alloc, construct

This function is part of the collections interface; for any collection X, name_me(X) gives a new container similar to X.

What to call the thing?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#58

[StefanKarpinski]

What about just new?

Two problems:

• We want to use new as the "private" function that constructs new objects inside of constructors (see issue redesign constructors to allow uninitialized fields #30).
• I personally think that's far too generic a name for something that's pretty specific to containers.

[ViralBShah]

I like similar.

[StefanKarpinski]

Agreed, that's the one I like the best too since it's the most descriptive.

[JeffBezanson]

This isn't really specific to containers. With extra arguments you might even use it for immutable objects, e.g. similar(z, 0, 1) to make a complex number of the same type as z.

[JeffBezanson]

similar is ok with me. I like how it has a more declarative feel; it's not tied to the notion of allocating space for an object. Very generic.