Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <20030801185626.16922.qmail@web41713.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Steitz <steitzp@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [lang] StringUtils overlay/concatenate/getNested
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308010022560.15155-100000@umbongo.flamefew.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

FWIW, I agree with all of Henri's views, except that I am more +1 on the
concatenate -> join change.  To me, concatenate connotes a binary operation
(like +), but StringUtils.concatenate is an array operation. I like join
better.

Phil

--- Henri Yandell <bayard@generationjava.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Gary Gregory wrote:
> 
> > I am always for choosing better names.
> 
> Many of these names are my fault, as with much of StringUtils, and I'm
> loving that the community part of open-source is paying off for me.
> Smarter people are looking at my ideas with a different perspective and
> massively improving them. Quite humbling in fact.
> 
> > >- overlayString - shouldn't have 'String' in name. Better named as
> > 'replace'
> 
> But we already have a replace method? Unless I'm on crack, the
> functionalities are quite different. Overlay takes a text and effectively
> replaces based on a set of indexes, rather than replacing characters.
> 
> +1 to removing String
> -0 to replace
> +0 to another name than 'overlay'
> 
> > >- concatenate - does the name as join(array, null) so should be called
> > join(array)
> >
> > I cannot say I am fond of the whole 'join' terminology. It seems to
> > math-like for String objects (as opposed to Sets). Since strings are
> 'added'
> > together with '+', has 'add' been proposed? Not a great choice I know.
> >
> > +0
> 
> My only problem with join is something someone pointed out to me not long
> after I accepted that 'join' was more Java than the explode/implode I'd
> used elsewhere. They pointed out that Java already has a join method on
> every Object. So in effect we're overloading a threading method. Kinda.
> 
> Having join(array) makes more logical sense, but I also think that people
> might be looking for a 'concat' style of function.
> 
> +0 too. I feel people will complain, but it does seem the right choice.
> 
> > >- getNestedString - poor name, again with String in it.
> >
> > 'Nested' seems wrong to me. This is just a 'substring'-type of
> operation,
> > how about 'substringBetween'? We already have 'substringAfter' and
> > 'substringBefore', so this seems to fit just, well, just between. ;-)
> 
> +1 to substringBetween.
> 
> It's not sexy, but it does help to group the method nicely with the
> substring collection.
> 
> Hen
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com