rename domain.member?

[mppf]

The current method name for querying if a value is in a domain is domain.member().

E.g.

var D:domain(int);

D += 4;

assert(D.member(4));
assert(!D.member(3));

This method name bothers me for English/Programming Style reasons. member is a noun and I really want the method name to be a verb in this case.

What should we do?

1. add domain.contains()
   a) and deprecate domain.member()
   b) and keep domain.member() as a synonym
2. enable parser/build to translate x in someDomain into this query (Support 'in' as an infix operator for membership test #5034)
   a) and deprecate domain.member()
   b) and keep domain.member() as a synonym
3. do nothing

[mppf]

I created PR #5026 to add domain.contains(). I think we should add a deprecation warning to domain.member(), but leave it around (no-doc'd) for some time, since this is just a trivial renaming. In other words I'm in favor of 1a above.

[bradcray]

If we add a deprecation warning, I think we should add a test case that triggers it in test/deprecated and then remove it after the next release. I.e., I don't think there's great value in carrying deprecated features across multiple releases and would prefer to avoid carrying too much deprecated code around. I could possibly imagine an argument to carry it across two releases in case professors only teach a class using Chapel once a year, particularly in this case due to the triviality of carrying the code forward.

[mppf]

@lydia-duncan, @bradcray, @ben-albrecht: OK, my current plan is to:

• add domain.contains
• deprecate domain.member() with a warning (for 1.15 and 1.16)
• remove domain.member() in 1.17

Sound OK? If I understand correctly this is OK with each of you...

Thanks.

[lydia-duncan]

Sounds good to me!

[ben-albrecht]

👍

…

On Dec 16, 2016 8:19 AM, "Lydia Duncan" ***@***.***> wrote: Sounds good to me! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5041 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADbcuREfZMGiW3cy0gNmt2vXqyRiEyYkks5rIrojgaJpZM4LOMlj> .

[bradcray]

It remains unclear to me whether we have a quorum on this decision or whether most people blew it off as being silly and didn't bother responding. I think it'd be worth taking a better straw poll on rather than relying on only those who had time to weigh in on the topic. Or maybe you've got better results than I do...

[daviditen]

I am fine with @mppf 's proposal.

[noakesmichael]

I was disappointed by it. Mike On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:25 AM, David Iten <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote: I am fine with @mppf<https://github.com/mppf> 's proposal. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#5041 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACERpp682luCq2gOOQdtN_vhWoH2xxziks5rIsl3gaJpZM4LOMlj>.

[mppf]

The proposal has 3 advocates and the only objections are that we have bigger fish to fry.