3 ms·

This is nice! I can't help but wonder why everyone still names their API functions Foo_to_Bar when the reverse Bar_from_Foo is so much more readable when chain

• likium 4y ago
  My take is most people write code in a write optimized manner. Foo_to_Bar is much friendlier for the writer as auto-complete will come up with all the Foo_to_Xs you can use, whereas the Bar_from_Foo format requires the writer to know that they want to use Bar up front.
• dan-robertson 4y ago
  In OCaml, a common convention is often to use functions with names like int_of_float (or Int.of_float), although it is also likely that (e.g.) the Int module will have a to_float function too. I write a lot of OCaml and it still trips me up from time to time. The other solution in a procedural/functional language is to write code closer to the evaluation order, e.g. with a 'pipeline' operator: let myoklch = mycolor |> lin_proPhoto |> lin_proPhoto_to_XYZ |> ... or with a 'fluent' interface in an OOP language: let myoklch = mycolor.to_linear().to_XYZ().to_D65().to_OKLAB().to_OKLCH();