Am 23.07.24 um 00:47 schrieb Kyle Lippincott:
>
> If we have a good set of protections against misuse, does this mean
> we're free to rename it? :) The concern raised for why `for` had to be
> in the name was because it was using a control statement (a
> at-most-1-execution for loop) to achieve its magic, and the control
> statement puts certain restrictions and obligations on how to use it
> correctly. If the misuse is detected reliably, we can choose a name
> that's more descriptive about what it's doing.
Well, I called it "test" initially because I'm lazy and it describes
its purpose.
But the fact remains that this is an iteration statement, even though
it kinda looks like a function, and it should be used as such. We have
to explicitly tell clang-format, and having "for" in the name reminds
developers as well.
There is a slight dissonance between it executing at most once and it
being an iteration. In C we commonly use conditionals ("if") for that.
Calling it "if_test" would be misleading with "for" under the hood,
though, as you cannot have an "else" branch -- which we don't need
anyway.
That said, iterating zero or one times is possible and understandable
not too much of a stretch IMHO. I can understand that one needs a
minute to get used to that new keyword, though.
René
