1

Topic: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Not absolutely philosophy, but nevertheless http://rsdn.ru/poll/5377 the Author: x-code Date: 10.07 23:33 Question: How to name function (or a keyword for a designation such ), corresponding to concept "" and opposite to "designer"? We admit that for the designer it is used "init". For symmetry it would be desirable also an opposite word that was four-character (i.e. destroy, destruct, finalize by this criterion are undesirable).

2

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, x-code, you wrote: XC> Not absolutely philosophy, but nevertheless OMG. There are standard antonyms in programming. The amount of characters not very well - is important, that it was obvious, who to whom of steam. Type steams to "Add" / to "Divide", not being antonyms, are counter-indicative.

3

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> OMG. There are standard antonyms in programming. The amount of characters not very well - is important, that it was obvious, who to whom of steam. S> type steams to "Add" / to "Divide", not being antonyms, are counter-indicative. Here these standard antonyms also are interesting to me. I want to avoid to "Add" / to "Divide", but on the other hand - if to enter a new successful antonym why is not present? Here in voting a variant free quite to itself(himself) of anything (though it normally associates with "alloc" - storage selection). ctor/dtor - here I do not like that that difference of all in single letter, and abbreviations  though are standard. Though too a variant.

4

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

I most of all like variants constructor/destructor if to distract from initial requirements.

5

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, x-code, you wrote: XC> Here these standard antonyms also are interesting to me. I want to avoid to "Add" / to "Divide", but on the other hand - if to enter a new successful antonym why is not present? add/remove create/destroy init/done alloc/free XC> Here in voting a variant free quite to itself(himself) of anything (though it normally associates with "alloc" - storage selection).

6

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> init/done mum expensive. From what pores done it is an antonym to init? init/term, init/deinit, yes anything you like, but it is exact not done

7

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

A> mum expensive. From what pores done it is an antonym to init? init/term, init/deinit, yes anything you like, but it is exact not done Approximately with 1986.

8

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, Kodt, you wrote: These  are good that are not intersected with ordinary words, therefore they can be used as language keywords, without being afraid of the conflict. In difference even from init. And still there is a mode to set a heap of underlinings before a keyword - that was not exact the conflict Is not present, actually me conflicts do not interest at all. Me the maximum beauty, expressiveness, convenience interests. ctor/dtor typed a majority of votes - well probably it correctly. Probably "designer" this wider concept than "initialization" (though that else it does?) init/term and init/done too anything, but all the same the sense of words for  deviates a little.

9

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: A>> mum expensive. From what pores done it is an antonym to init? init/term, init/deinit, yes anything you like, but it is exact not done S> Approximately with 1986. And what was in 1986? (Well, except Chernobyl)

10

Re: Title for deinitsializatsii/destruktora

Hello, antropolog, you wrote: A> Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: A>>> mum expensive. From what pores done it is an antonym to init? init/term, init/deinit, yes anything you like, but it is exact not done S>> Approximately with 1986. A> and what was in 1986? (Well, except Chernobyl) Turbo Vision.