Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48498 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2008 01:26:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Dec 2008 01:26:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 13610 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2008 01:26:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 13571 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2008 01:26:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 13560 invoked by uid 99); 30 Dec 2008 01:26:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:26:07 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.68.5.9] (HELO relay00.pair.com) (209.68.5.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:25:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 92366 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2008 01:25:36 -0000 Received: from 96.33.90.152 (HELO ?192.168.1.199?) (96.33.90.152) by relay00.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Dec 2008 01:25:36 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 96.33.90.152 Message-Id: From: Damien Katz To: user@couchdb.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Changing rev to _rev in view results (Was: Re: newbie question #1) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:25:36 -0500 References: <98979283-BB61-4D15-AF05-196979FA42BC@pobox.com> <49C5583B-254D-4D4D-A4F7-AD7306E758F1@gmail.com> <8A2A146E-F011-4502-9DD9-336300392CDC@apache.org> <0743DF91-9015-43DD-9A0F-7E79D6DF4632@gmail.com> <0DE02009-32CB-4A88-8C39-7942E00BF8D6@apache.org> <15C26192-DBC1-4256-85C4-E9C005BFE3E3@gmail.com> <20081230003000.GV7150@tumbolia.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Dec 29, 2008, at 7:37 PM, Antony Blakey wrote: > > On 30/12/2008, at 11:00 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:08:04AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote: >>> Any objection to this must be aesthetic. >> >> In the general case, and presuming it doesn't trump an obvious >> technical goal > > Which is the essence of this argument - IMO API consistency and > rigor wrt design principles is being compromised by a) arguments > about the cost of writing an extra underscore and b) assertions that > this issue has already been decided. Actually, that last reason isn't quite complete. It's not just that's its decided, it's that's it's already been decided, implemented and working like it is for a year. Your argument about consistency and rigor being compromised is unqualified. I see nothing more or less consistent or rigorous about the current implementation versus other proposals, the rule as is is easy to follow and use, and as far as I know has no inconsistencies. -Damien