responding to both children as they're related: Enginerrrd said: > The syntax here doesn't otherwise communicate that to me at all. Assuming I'm understandin

responding to both children as they're related: Enginerrrd said: > The syntax here doesn't otherwise communicate that to me at all. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, that's my point. If the syntax doesn't communicate intent, it suggests a usability limitation. frankmcsherry said: > Naming things is hard. Agreed. Hence point about readability being a personal thing. In this case though, look again at the comment and the line of code. I'd suggest that very few people, on reading the code without the comment, would guess that it was creating a new dataflow computation. > In this case, the command does not create a new dataflow, it creates a new timely dataflow computation Good point, thanks for the correction.