W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [TF-LIB] COALESCE is an unhelpful choice of name

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:30:43 -0500
Message-ID: <4AFEB103.8060102@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14/11/2009 06:39, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2009, at 05:48, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>> Based on your previous email "COALESCE (or whatever it's called) takes
>>> 1 or more arguments and returns the first of its arguments that is
>>> bound to a value (i.e. first argument that is not unbound and not a
>>> type error)."
>>>
>>> So what about FIRST_BOUND or something explicit like that ?
>>
>> "First" is a bit ambiguous. Lexically? (where?), chronologically?
>>
>> I thought about LEFTMOST(), but that's not great either.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
> 
> LEFTMOST is possible.
> 
> A word with a firstness about it would be good.
> I think "first" for "first in list" is clear enough.
> 
> FIRST_SAFE seems accurate albeit long.
> FIRST_VALID
> 
> Just SAFE?  More emphasis on it's protecting role than the order.
> 
> PROTECT?
> 

I agree that there isn't really any confusion about FIRST if combined 
with something else descriptive. I like FIRST_BOUND myself. SAFE implies 
all sorts of security stuff to me which would confuse me.

FIRST_VALID is ok, but I prefer first_bound.

or i'm also still happy with COALESCE for all the reasons Steve has 
suggested.

Lee
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2009 13:31:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT