Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: When words are good and when words Message-ID: <2600008@ccvaxa> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 11:26:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600008 Posted: Mon Aug 5 11:26:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:03:49 EDT References: <1985@ukma.UUCP> Lines: 29 Nf-ID: #R:ukma.UUCP:-198500:ccvaxa:2600008:000:1363 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Aug 5 10:26:00 1985 > In article <2600006@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > > Unfortunately, the name 'opentest' doesn't imply that the variable > > named 'foo' has been set to the new fd and that the file is now open. > > It implies (to me, at least) a test of whether it is possible to > > open the file. Now, if you wanted to call it "TRY_TO_OPEN", I would > > be more likely to interpret the name correctly, but some people might > > interpret that name as a Boolean indicating whether or not to try to > > open the file. Naming is very tricky. Doing the operation is very > > clear. > > On the other hand we have somebody saying that a particular word isn't > clear enough (opentest) and offering up another (TRY_TO_OPEN) saying > that his is unambiguous. (I don't quite follow him though, since > all EITHER open() or fopen() do is TRY_TO_OPEN a file, returning > an indicator as to their success, that the indicator is also useful > in later code isn't important). ---------- What I was TRYING to say was that NEITHER name was very good and that I thought you should let C look like C and use the "if ( (x=fopen(...)) == NULL) {...}" form. Words are too likely to mean one thing to me and another to you. Don't use a macro or procedure unless it's a useful, clear abstraction of what is being done. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece