* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 21:59:58 GMT) > On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote: > > > Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this > > case recursion) is a classical WTF. > > *If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world > objects. Think about the exceptions: > > microwave oven > vacuum cleaner > oven fries > electric car > chain saw > flintlock rifle > air gun > vulcanised rubber > kerosene heater > aluminium foil > diamond saw > gas stove > wood stove > four-wheel drive car > incandescent light bulb > electric razor > unleaded petrol > > to mention only a few. > > Naming the thing after the implementation would often seem to be *good > advice*, not bad. We often do care about implementations. You really do > need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.
That's exactly the point. You don't need to know whether "include sub- directories" was implemented recursively. It's absolutely pointless. But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r, --recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents recursively". Thorsten -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
