From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-10-20T01:20:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Searching for a name

Brian Schr�der wrote:
> On 19/10/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>>Brian Schr�der wrote:
>>
>>>On 19/10/05, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Brian Schr�der wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>How about
>>>>#deq
>>>>#deq_key
>>>>#deq_prio
>>>>
>>>>?
>>>>
>>>>Kind regards
>>>>
>>>>    robert
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hello Robert,
>>>
>>>I assume you use deq as a short for dequeue. In this case I have the
>>>problem that the name
>>>dequeue_key would somehow imply that the key was removed while
>>>deq_prio would imply removing the priority. This does not make sense
>>>if one knows the datastructure, but I'm not too happy with it.
>>
>>OTOH: if you know the data structure, you know that the prio is not
>>removed. :-)
> 
> 
> Sorry if I was not clear, english is not my native language. I tried
> to imply exactly what you said.
> 
> 
>>Does this method return the prio of the last removed element
>>or the current min prio?
> 
> 
> "delete_min_return_priority" returns the priority of the element that
> was removed by calling this method.

I am still not sure :) By 'this method', do you mean delete/dequeue?
Or does delete_min_return_priority itself delete?

If it does not delete, then #last_(deleted_)priority is fine; otherwise
you might do something like #dequeue_by and document the return value.
It would get excessively verbose to include all that information in the
method name.

>>Kind regards
>>
>>    robert
>>
> 
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Brian

E