Hi, > > Oh no! We encountered one of the most difficult problems in computer > > science [1]. > > Indeed :-(. Looking at it again this morning, I'm thinking of > using "contain_mutable_functions_after_planning" --- what do you > think of that?
It's better but creates an impression that the actual planning will be involved. According to the comments for expression_planner(): ``` * Currently, we disallow sublinks in standalone expressions, so there's no * real "planning" involved here. (That might not always be true though.) ``` I'm not very well familiar with the part of code responsible for planning, but I find this inconsistency confusing. Since the code is written for people to be read and is read more often than written personally I believe that longer and more descriptive names are better. Something like contain_mutable_functions_after_planner_transformations(). This being said, in practice one should read the comments to learn about corner cases, pre- and postconditions anyway, so maybe it's not that a big deal. I think of contain_mutable_functions_after_transformations() as a good compromise between the length and descriptiveness. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
