Please name builders approprietly #949
Description
There is a lot of:
nvThunk - type of names of entities.
But what it is?
It does what?
It is named as a literal/variable.
But it is a function.
The main point in the name of value is a noun, of a function - is a strong verb. There is no verb in these names - therefore they read not as functions but as values, that drives attention to what is nvThunk representation/type/value is & puzzles the reader with types & how NValue operates, & some of these nv* are really complex and take many arguments - but that is not that important, we generally need help people to be able to abstract from that. It just lifts the Haskell value into Nix value, it is a builder, which use mk.
mkThunk seems like a simpler & more to-the-point name. And is it needed to drive attention that it is Nix Value, maybe that is a detail, maybe to supply N/V, but it already comes from the Nix.Value module & has NValue in the signature, NValues are so prevalent (the main abstraction in the codebase) & these functions are of so general use in HNix - they do not need to mention this, as (generalizing) in HNix all builders are to be Nix language builders.
This question liked to:
#948
& developing minimal guidelines on naming conventions, as they are currently needed anyway & would be need even if to simplify names.