Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] hasDroppedEntry in PerformanceObserverCallback (#547)

A dump of other naming ideas:

* `isFull` - No, because it needs to reflect past state.
* `wasFull` - No, because being full is fine. The state we communicate is not reaching the limit, but going over the limit and thus having dropped and missed out on some entires.
* `bufferOverflow` - No, because it needs to reflect past state.
* `bufferOverflowed` - Maybe, but feels awkward, and is imho the last two chars would be too easily ignored or read over and thus not communicating that it is a past state.
* `hasBufferOverflow` - Maybe, but I think we want past-tense? (per @npm1).
* `hadBufferOverflow` - Maybe, although this could be seen as grammatically incorrect if you interpet "buffer overflow" as a verb, in which case it would need  to be "has [the] buffer overflown", "had an overflowed buffer", or "did [the] buffer overflow". Alternatively, if you interpret "buffer overflow" as a noun, the happening of the overflow, then "had [a] buffer overflow" seems fine.
* `didBufferOverflow` - Maybe, if you prefer verbial.
* `wasBufferOverflown` – Maybe, but feels awkward.
* `wasBufferOverflow` – Maybe, but feels awkward also.

I have a slight preference toward "has" due to being common and familiar with other boolean interfaces in (Web) APIs. But, admitedly those APIs are about actual possessive nouns like `hasChildNodes`, `hasFeature`, and of course `hasOwnProperty`. While "to have" is grammatically versatile and may be used far beyond simple nouns that belong to something, it is imho not ideal and can be especially confusing for [ESL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_a_second_or_foreign_language) learners.

Using "is" or "was" for this boolean state is more natural, I think, and still quite common in Web APIs. It's just that.. I can't think of a name that uses "was" and isn't awkward or incorrect.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/547#issuecomment-698509830