I'm a bit confused over the difference between docstrings and comments in python.
In my class my teacher introduced something known as a 'design recipe', a set of steps that will supposedly help us students plot and organize our coding better in Python. From what I understand, the below is an example of the steps we follow - this so call design recipe (the stuff in the quotations):
def term_work_mark(a0_mark, a1_mark, a2_mark, ex_mark, midterm_mark):
''' (float, float, float, float, float) -> float
Takes your marks on a0_mark, a1_mark, a2_mark, ex_mark and midterm_mark,
calculates their respective weight contributions and sums these
contributions to deliver your overall term mark out of a maximum of 55 (This
is because the exam mark is not taken account of in this function)
>>>term_work_mark(5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
11.8
>>>term_work_mark(0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
0.0
'''
a0_component = contribution(a0_mark, a0_max_mark, a0_weight)
a1_component = contribution(a1_mark, a1_max_mark, a1_weight)
a2_component = contribution(a2_mark, a2_max_mark, a2_weight)
ex_component = contribution(ex_mark, exercises_max_mark,exercises_weight)
mid_component = contribution(midterm_mark, midterm_max_mark, midterm_weight)
return (a0_component + a1_component + a2_component + ex_component +
mid_component)
As far as I understand this is basically a docstring, and in our version of a docstring it must include three things: a description, examples of what your function should do if you enter it in the python shell, and a 'type contract', a section that shows you what types you enter and what types the function will return.
Now this is all good and done, but our assignments require us to also have comments which explain the nature of our functions, using the token '#' symbol.
So, my question is, haven't I already explained what my function will do in the description section of the docstring? What's the point of adding comments if I'll essentially be telling the reader the exact same thing?
It appears your teacher is a fan of How to Design Programs ;)
I'd tackle this as writing for two different audiences who won't always overlap.
First there are the docstrings; these are for people who are going to be using your code without needing or wanting to know how it works. Docstrings can be turned into actual documentation. Consider the official Python documentation - What's available in each library and how to use it, no implementation details (Unless they directly relate to use)
Secondly there are in-code comments; these are to explain what is going on to people (generally you!) who want to extend the code. These will not normally be turned into documentation as they are really about the code itself rather than usage. Now there are about as many opinions on what makes for good comments (or lack thereof) as there are programmers. My personal rules of thumb for adding comments are to explain:
Parts of the code that are necessarily complex. (Optimisation comes to mind)
Workarounds for code you don't have control over, that may otherwise appear illogical
I'll admit to TODOs as well, though I try to keep that to a minimum
Where I've made a choice of a simpler algorithm where a better performing (but more complex) option can go if performance in that section later becomes critical
Since you're coding in an academic setting, and it sounds like your lecturer is going for verbose, I'd say just roll with it. Use code comments to explain how you are doing what you say you are doing in the design recipe.
I believe that it's worth to mention what PEP8 says, I mean, the pure concept.
Docstrings
Conventions for writing good documentation strings (a.k.a. "docstrings") are immortalized in PEP 257.
Write docstrings for all public modules, functions, classes, and methods. Docstrings are not necessary for non-public methods, but you should have a comment that describes what the method does. This comment should appear after the def line.
PEP 257 describes good docstring conventions. Note that most importantly, the """ that ends a multiline docstring should be on a line by itself, e.g.:
"""Return a foobang
Optional plotz says to frobnicate the bizbaz first.
"""
For one liner docstrings, please keep the closing """ on the same line.
Comments
Block comments
Generally apply to some (or all) code that follows them, and are indented to the same level as that code. Each line of a block comment starts with a # and a single space (unless it is indented text inside the comment).
Paragraphs inside a block comment are separated by a line containing a single #.
Inline Comments
Use inline comments sparingly.
An inline comment is a comment on the same line as a statement. Inline comments should be separated by at least two spaces from the statement. They should start with a # and a single space.
Inline comments are unnecessary and in fact distracting if they state the obvious.
Don't do this:
x = x + 1 # Increment x
But sometimes, this is useful:
x = x + 1 # Compensate for border
Reference
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#documentation-strings
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#inline-comments
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#block-comments
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/
First of all, for formatting your posts you can use the help options above the text area you type your post.
And about comments and doc strings, the doc string is there to explain the overall use and basic information of the methods. On the other hand comments are meant to give specific information on blocks or lines, #TODO is used to remind you what you want to do in future, definition of variables and so on. By the way, in IDLE the doc string is shown as a tool tip when you hover over the method's name.
Quoting from this page http://www.pythonforbeginners.com/basics/python-docstrings/
Python documentation strings (or docstrings) provide a convenient way
of associating documentation with Python modules, functions, classes,
and methods.
An object's docsting is defined by including a string constant as the
first statement in the object's definition.
It's specified in source code that is used, like a comment, to
document a specific segment of code.
Unlike conventional source code comments the docstring should describe
what the function does, not how.
All functions should have a docstring
This allows the program to inspect these comments at run time, for
instance as an interactive help system, or as metadata.
Docstrings can be accessed by the __doc__ attribute on objects.
Docstrings can be accessed through a program (__doc__) where as inline comments cannot be accessed.
Interactive help systems like in bpython and IPython can use docstrings to display the docsting during the development. So that you dont have to visit the program everytime.
This is a language agnostic question, but I'm wandering what people prefer in terms of readability and maintainability... My hypothetical situation is that I'm writing a function which given a sequence will return a copy with all duplicate element removed and the order reversed.
/*
*This is an extremely well written function to return a sequence containing
*all the unique elements of OriginalSequence with their order reversed
*/
ReturnSequence SequenceFunction(OriginalSequence)
{...}
OR
UniqueAndReversedSequence MakeSequenceUniqueAndReversed(OriginalSequence)
{....}
The above is supposed to be a lucid example of using comments in the first instance or using very verbose function names in the second to describe the actions of the function.
Cheers,
Richard
I prefer the verbose function name as it make the call-site more readable. Of course, some function names (like your example) can get really long.
Perhaps a better name for your example function would be ReverseAndDedupe. Uh oh, now it is a little more clear that we have a function with two responsibilities*. Perhaps it would be even better to split this out into two functions: Reverse and Dedupe.
Now the call-site becomes even more readable:
Reverse(Dedupe(someSequence))
*Note: My rule of thumb is that any function that contains "and" in the name has too many responsibilities and needs to be split up in to separate functions.
Personally I prefer the second way - it's easy to see from the function name what it does - and because the code inside the function is well written anyway it'll be easy to work out exactly what happens inside it.
The problem I find with comments is they very quickly go out of date - there's no compile time check to ensure your comment is correct!
Also, you don't get access to the comment in the places where the function is actually called.
Very much a subjective question though!
Ideally you would do a combination of the two. Try to keep your method names concise but descriptive enough to get a good idea of what it's going to do. If there is any possibility of lack of clarity in the method name, you should have comments to assist the reader in the logic.
Even with descriptive names you should still be concise. I think what you have in the example is overkill. I would have written
UniqueSequence Reverse(Sequence)
I comment where there's an explanation in order that a descriptive name cannot adequately convey. If there's a peculiarity with a library that forced me to do something that appears non-standard or value in dropping a comment inline, I'll do that but otherwise I rely upon well-named methods and don't comment things a lot - except while I'm writing the code, and those are for myself. They get removed when it is done, typically.
Generally speaking, function header comments are just more lines to maintain and require the reader to look at both the comment and the code and then decide which is correct if they aren't in correspondence. Obviously the truth is always in the code. The comment may say X but comments don't compile to machine code (typically) so...
Comment when necessary and make a habit of naming things well. That's what I do.
I'd probably do one of these:
Call it ReverseAndDedupe (or DedupeAndReverse, depending which one it is -- I'd expect Dedupe alone to keep the first occurrence and discard later ones, so the two operations do not commute). All functions make some postcondition true, so Make can certainly go in order to shorten a too-long name. Functions don't generally need to be named for the types they operate on, and if they are then it should be in a consistent format. So Sequence can probably be removed from your proposed name too, or if it can't then I'd probably call it Sequence_ReverseAndDedupe.
Not create this function at all, make sure that callers can either do Reverse(Dedupe(x)) or Dedupe(Reverse(x)), depending which they actually want. It's no more code for them to write, so only an issue of whether there's some cunning optimization that only applies when you do both at once. Avoiding an intermediate copy might qualify there, but the general point is that if you can't name your function concisely, make sure there's a good reason why it's doing so many different things.
Call it ReversedAndDeduped if it returns a copy of the original sequence - this is a trick I picked up from Python, where l.sort() sorts the list l in place, and sorted(l) doesn't modify a list l at all.
Give it a name specific to the domain it's used in, rather than trying to make it so generic. Why am I deduping and reversing this list? There might be some term of art that means a list in that state, or some function which can only be performed on such a list. So I could call it 'Renuberate' (because a reversed, deduped list is known as a list "in Renuberated form", or 'MakeFrobbable' (because Frobbing requires this format).
I'd also comment it (or much better, document it), to explain what type of deduping it guarantees (if any - perhaps the implementation is left free to remove whichever dupes it likes so long as it gets them all).
I wouldn't comment it "extremely well written", although I might comment "highly optimized" to mean "this code is really hard to work with, but goes like the clappers, please don't touch it without running all the performance tests".
I don't think I'd want to go as far as 5-word function names, although I expect I have in the past.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 11 months ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Sorry for the waffly title - if I could come up with a concise title, I wouldn't have to ask the question.
Suppose I have an immutable list type. It has an operation Foo(x) which returns a new immutable list with the specified argument as an extra element at the end. So to build up a list of strings with values "Hello", "immutable", "world" you could write:
var empty = new ImmutableList<string>();
var list1 = empty.Foo("Hello");
var list2 = list1.Foo("immutable");
var list3 = list2.Foo("word");
(This is C# code, and I'm most interested in a C# suggestion if you feel the language is important. It's not fundamentally a language question, but the idioms of the language may be important.)
The important thing is that the existing lists are not altered by Foo - so empty.Count would still return 0.
Another (more idiomatic) way of getting to the end result would be:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>().Foo("Hello")
.Foo("immutable")
.Foo("word");
My question is: what's the best name for Foo?
EDIT 3: As I reveal later on, the name of the type might not actually be ImmutableList<T>, which makes the position clear. Imagine instead that it's TestSuite and that it's immutable because the whole of the framework it's a part of is immutable...
(End of edit 3)
Options I've come up with so far:
Add: common in .NET, but implies mutation of the original list
Cons: I believe this is the normal name in functional languages, but meaningless to those without experience in such languages
Plus: my favourite so far, it doesn't imply mutation to me. Apparently this is also used in Haskell but with slightly different expectations (a Haskell programmer might expect it to add two lists together rather than adding a single value to the other list).
With: consistent with some other immutable conventions, but doesn't have quite the same "additionness" to it IMO.
And: not very descriptive.
Operator overload for + : I really don't like this much; I generally think operators should only be applied to lower level types. I'm willing to be persuaded though!
The criteria I'm using for choosing are:
Gives the correct impression of the result of the method call (i.e. that it's the original list with an extra element)
Makes it as clear as possible that it doesn't mutate the existing list
Sounds reasonable when chained together as in the second example above
Please ask for more details if I'm not making myself clear enough...
EDIT 1: Here's my reasoning for preferring Plus to Add. Consider these two lines of code:
list.Add(foo);
list.Plus(foo);
In my view (and this is a personal thing) the latter is clearly buggy - it's like writing "x + 5;" as a statement on its own. The first line looks like it's okay, until you remember that it's immutable. In fact, the way that the plus operator on its own doesn't mutate its operands is another reason why Plus is my favourite. Without the slight ickiness of operator overloading, it still gives the same connotations, which include (for me) not mutating the operands (or method target in this case).
EDIT 2: Reasons for not liking Add.
Various answers are effectively: "Go with Add. That's what DateTime does, and String has Replace methods etc which don't make the immutability obvious." I agree - there's precedence here. However, I've seen plenty of people call DateTime.Add or String.Replace and expect mutation. There are loads of newsgroup questions (and probably SO ones if I dig around) which are answered by "You're ignoring the return value of String.Replace; strings are immutable, a new string gets returned."
Now, I should reveal a subtlety to the question - the type might not actually be an immutable list, but a different immutable type. In particular, I'm working on a benchmarking framework where you add tests to a suite, and that creates a new suite. It might be obvious that:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>();
list.Add("foo");
isn't going to accomplish anything, but it becomes a lot murkier when you change it to:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>();
suite.Add(x => x.Length);
That looks like it should be okay. Whereas this, to me, makes the mistake clearer:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>();
suite.Plus(x => x.Length);
That's just begging to be:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>().Plus(x => x.Length);
Ideally, I would like my users not to have to be told that the test suite is immutable. I want them to fall into the pit of success. This may not be possible, but I'd like to try.
I apologise for over-simplifying the original question by talking only about an immutable list type. Not all collections are quite as self-descriptive as ImmutableList<T> :)
In situations like that, I usually go with Concat. That usually implies to me that a new object is being created.
var p = listA.Concat(listB);
var k = listA.Concat(item);
I'd go with Cons, for one simple reason: it means exactly what you want it to.
I'm a huge fan of saying exactly what I mean, especially in source code. A newbie will have to look up the definition of Cons only once, but then read and use that a thousand times. I find that, in the long term, it's nicer to work with systems that make the common case easier, even if the up-front cost is a little bit higher.
The fact that it would be "meaningless" to people with no FP experience is actually a big advantage. As you pointed out, all of the other words you found already have some meaning, and that meaning is either slightly different or ambiguous. A new concept should have a new word (or in this case, an old one). I'd rather somebody have to look up the definition of Cons, than to assume incorrectly he knows what Add does.
Other operations borrowed from functional languages often keep their original names, with no apparent catastrophes. I haven't seen any push to come up with synonyms for "map" and "reduce" that sound more familiar to non-FPers, nor do I see any benefit from doing so.
(Full disclosure: I'm a Lisp programmer, so I already know what Cons means.)
Actually I like And, especially in the idiomatic way. I'd especially like it if you had a static readonly property for the Empty list, and perhaps make the constructor private so you always have to build from the empty list.
var list = ImmutableList<string>.Empty.And("Hello")
.And("Immutable")
.And("Word");
Whenever I'm in a jam with nomenclature, I hit up the interwebs.
thesaurus.com returns this for "add":
Definition: adjoin, increase; make
further comment
Synonyms: affix,
annex, ante, append, augment, beef
up, boost, build up, charge up,
continue, cue in, figure in, flesh
out, heat up, hike, hike up, hitch on,
hook on, hook up with, include, jack
up, jazz up, join together, pad,
parlay, piggyback, plug into, pour it
on, reply, run up, say further, slap
on, snowball, soup up, speed up,
spike, step up, supplement, sweeten,
tack on, tag
I like the sound of Adjoin, or more simply Join. That is what you're doing, right? The method could also apply to joining other ImmutableList<>'s.
Personally, I like .With(). If I was using the object, after reading the documentation or the code comments, it would be clear what it does, and it reads ok in the source code.
object.With("My new item as well");
Or, you add "Along" with it.. :)
object.AlongWith("this new item");
I ended up going with Add for all of my Immutable Collections in BclExtras. The reason being is that it's an easy predictable name. I'm not worried so much about people confusing Add with a mutating add since the name of the type is prefixed with Immutable.
For awhile I considered Cons and other functional style names. Eventually I discounted them because they're not nearly as well known. Sure functional programmers will understand but they're not the majority of users.
Other Names: you mentioned:
Plus: I'm wishy/washing on this one. For me this doesn't distinguish it as being a non-mutating operation anymore than Add does
With: Will cause issues with VB (pun intended)
Operator overloading: Discoverability would be an issue
Options I considered:
Concat: String's are Immutable and use this. Unfortunately it's only really good for adding to the end
CopyAdd: Copy what? The source, the list?
AddToNewList: Maybe a good one for List. But what about a Collection, Stack, Queue, etc ...
Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a word that is
Definitely an immutable operation
Understandable to the majority of users
Representable in less than 4 words
It gets even more odd when you consider collections other than List. Take for instance Stack. Even first year programmers can tell you that Stacks have a Push/Pop pair of methods. If you create an ImmutableStack and give it a completely different name, lets call it Foo/Fop, you've just added more work for them to use your collection.
Edit: Response to Plus Edit
I see where you're going with Plus. I think a stronger case would actually be Minus for remove. If I saw the following I would certainly wonder what in the world the programmer was thinking
list.Minus(obj);
The biggest problem I have with Plus/Minus or a new pairing is it feels like overkill. The collection itself already has a distinguishing name, the Immutable prefix. Why go further by adding vocabulary whose intent is to add the same distinction as the Immutable prefix already did.
I can see the call site argument. It makes it clearer from the standpoint of a single expression. But in the context of the entire function it seems unnecessary.
Edit 2
Agree that people have definitely been confused by String.Concat and DateTime.Add. I've seen several very bright programmers hit this problem.
However I think ImmutableList is a different argument. There is nothing about String or DateTime that establishes it as Immutable to a programmer. You must simply know that it's immutable via some other source. So the confusion is not unexpected.
ImmutableList does not have that problem because the name defines it's behavior. You could argue that people don't know what Immutable is and I think that's also valid. I certainly didn't know it till about year 2 in college. But you have the same issue with whatever name you choose instead of Add.
Edit 3: What about types like TestSuite which are immutable but do not contain the word?
I think this drives home the idea that you shouldn't be inventing new method names. Namely because there is clearly a drive to make types immutable in order to facilitate parallel operations. If you focus on changing the name of methods for collections, the next step will be the mutating method names on every type you use that is immutable.
I think it would be a more valuable effort to instead focus on making types identifiable as Immutable. That way you can solve the problem without rethinking every mutating method pattern out there.
Now how can you identify TestSuite as Immutable? In todays environment I think there are a few ways
Prefix with Immutable: ImmutableTestSuite
Add an Attribute which describes the level of Immutablitiy. This is certainly less discoverable
Not much else.
My guess/hope is development tools will start helping this problem by making it easy to identify immutable types simply by sight (different color, stronger font, etc ...). But I think that's the answer though over changing all of the method names.
I think this may be one of those rare situations where it's acceptable to overload the + operator. In math terminology, we know that + doesn't append something to the end of something else. It always combines two values together and returns a new resulting value.
For example, it's intuitively obvious that when you say
x = 2 + 2;
the resulting value of x is 4, not 22.
Similarly,
var empty = new ImmutableList<string>();
var list1 = empty + "Hello";
var list2 = list1 + "immutable";
var list3 = list2 + "word";
should make clear what each variable is going to hold. It should be clear that list2 is not changed in the last line, but instead that list3 is assigned the result of appending "word" to list2.
Otherwise, I would just name the function Plus().
To be as clear as possible, you might want to go with the wordier CopyAndAdd, or something similar.
I would call it Extend() or maybe ExtendWith() if you feel like really verbose.
Extends means adding something to something else without changing it. I think this is very relevant terminology in C# since this is similar to the concept of extension methods - they "add" a new method to a class without "touching" the class itself.
Otherwise, if you really want to emphasize that you don't modify the original object at all, using some prefix like Get- looks like unavoidable to me.
Added(), Appended()
I like to use the past tense for operations on immutable objects. It conveys the idea that you aren't changing the original object, and it's easy to recognize when you see it.
Also, because mutating method names are often present-tense verbs, it applies to most of the immutable-method-name-needed cases you run into. For example an immutable stack has the methods "pushed" and "popped".
I like mmyers suggestion of CopyAndAdd. In keeping with a "mutation" theme, maybe you could go with Bud (asexual reproduction), Grow, Replicate, or Evolve? =)
EDIT: To continue with my genetic theme, how about Procreate, implying that a new object is made which is based on the previous one, but with something new added.
This is probably a stretch, but in Ruby there is a commonly used notation for the distinction: add doesn't mutate; add! mutates. If this is an pervasive problem in your project, you could do that too (not necessarily with non-alphabetic characters, but consistently using a notation to indicate mutating/non-mutating methods).
Join seems appropriate.
Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that you want two operations in one. Why not separate them? DSL style:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
var list2 = list.Copy().With("World!");
Copy would return an intermediate object, that's a mutable copy of the original list. With would return a new immutable list.
Update:
But, having an intermediate, mutable collection around is not a good approach. The intermediate object should be contained in the Copy operation:
var list1 = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
var list2 = list1.Copy(list => list.Add("World!"));
Now, the Copy operation takes a delegate, which receives a mutable list, so that it can control the copy outcome. It can do much more than appending an element, like removing elements or sorting the list. It can also be used in the ImmutableList constructor to assemble the initial list without intermediary immutable lists.
public ImmutableList<T> Copy(Action<IList<T>> mutate) {
if (mutate == null) return this;
var list = new List<T>(this);
mutate(list);
return new ImmutableList<T>(list);
}
Now there's no possibility of misinterpretation by the users, they will naturally fall into the pit of success.
Yet another update:
If you still don't like the mutable list mention, even now that it's contained, you can design a specification object, that will specify, or script, how the copy operation will transform its list. The usage will be the same:
var list1 = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
// rules is a specification object, that takes commands to run in the copied collection
var list2 = list1.Copy(rules => rules.Append("World!"));
Now you can be creative with the rules names and you can only expose the functionality that you want Copy to support, not the entire capabilities of an IList.
For the chaining usage, you can create a reasonable constructor (which will not use chaining, of course):
public ImmutableList(params T[] elements) ...
...
var list = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello", "immutable", "World");
Or use the same delegate in another constructor:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>(rules =>
rules
.Append("Hello")
.Append("immutable")
.Append("World")
);
This assumes that the rules.Append method returns this.
This is what it would look like with your latest example:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>(x => x.Length);
var otherSuite = suite.Copy(rules =>
rules
.Append(x => Int32.Parse(x))
.Append(x => x.GetHashCode())
);
A few random thoughts:
ImmutableAdd()
Append()
ImmutableList<T>(ImmutableList<T> originalList, T newItem) Constructor
DateTime in C# uses Add. So why not use the same name? As long the users of your class understand the class is immutable.
I think the key thing you're trying to get at that's hard to express is the nonpermutation, so maybe something with a generative word in it, something like CopyWith() or InstancePlus().
I don't think the English language will let you imply immutability in an unmistakable way while using a verb that means the same thing as "Add". "Plus" almost does it, but people can still make the mistake.
The only way you're going to prevent your users from mistaking the object for something mutable is by making it explicit, either through the name of the object itself or through the name of the method (as with the verbose options like "GetCopyWith" or "CopyAndAdd").
So just go with your favourite, "Plus."
First, an interesting starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions_(programming) ...In particular, check the "See Also" links at the bottom.
I'm in favor of either Plus or And, effectively equally.
Plus and And are both math-based in etymology. As such, both connote mathematical operation; both yield an expression which reads naturally as expressions which may resolve into a value, which fits with the method having a return value. And bears additional logic connotation, but both words apply intuitively to lists. Add connotes action performed on an object, which conflicts with the method's immutable semantics.
Both are short, which is especially important given the primitiveness of the operation. Simple, frequently-performed operations deserve shorter names.
Expressing immutable semantics is something I prefer to do via context. That is, I'd rather simply imply that this entire block of code has a functional feel; assume everything is immutable. That might just be me, however. I prefer immutability to be the rule; if it's done, it's done a lot in the same place; mutability is the exception.
How about Chain() or Attach()?
I prefer Plus (and Minus). They are easily understandable and map directly to operations involving well known immutable types (the numbers). 2+2 doesn't change the value of 2, it returns a new, equally immutable, value.
Some other possibilities:
Splice()
Graft()
Accrete()
How about mate, mateWith, or coitus, for those who abide. In terms of reproducing mammals are generally considered immutable.
Going to throw Union out there too. Borrowed from SQL.
Apparently I'm the first Obj-C/Cocoa person to answer this question.
NNString *empty = [[NSString alloc] init];
NSString *list1 = [empty stringByAppendingString:#"Hello"];
NSString *list2 = [list1 stringByAppendingString:#"immutable"];
NSString *list3 = [list2 stringByAppendingString:#"word"];
Not going to win any code golf games with this.
I think "Add" or "Plus" sounds fine. The name of the list itself should be enough to convey the list's immutability.
Maybe there are some words which remember me more of making a copy and add stuff to that instead of mutating the instance (like "Concatenate"). But i think having some symmetry for those words for other actions would be good to have too. I don't know of a similar word for "Remove" that i think of the same kind like "Concatenate". "Plus" sounds little strange to me. I wouldn't expect it being used in a non-numerical context. But that could aswell come from my non-english background.
Maybe i would use this scheme
AddToCopy
RemoveFromCopy
InsertIntoCopy
These have their own problems though, when i think about it. One could think they remove something or add something to an argument given. Not sure about it at all. Those words do not play nice in chaining either, i think. Too wordy to type.
Maybe i would just use plain "Add" and friends too. I like how it is used in math
Add 1 to 2 and you get 3
Well, certainly, a 2 remains a 2 and you get a new number. This is about two numbers and not about a list and an element, but i think it has some analogy. In my opinion, add does not necessarily mean you mutate something. I certainly see your point that having a lonely statement containing just an add and not using the returned new object does not look buggy. But I've now also thought some time about that idea of using another name than "add" but i just can't come up with another name, without making me think "hmm, i would need to look at the documentation to know what it is about" because its name differs from what I would expect to be called "add". Just some weird thought about this from litb, not sure it makes sense at all :)
Looking at http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/add and http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/plus I found gain and affix but I'm not sure how much they imply non-mutation.
I think that Plus() and Minus() or, alternatively, Including(), Excluding() are reasonable at implying immutable behavior.
However, no naming choice will ever make it perfectly clear to everyone, so I personally believe that a good xml doc comment would go a very long way here. VS throws these right in your face when you write code in the IDE - they're hard to ignore.
Append - because, note that names of the System.String methods suggest that they mutate the instance, but they don't.
Or I quite like AfterAppending:
void test()
{
Bar bar = new Bar();
List list = bar.AfterAppending("foo");
}
list.CopyWith(element)
As does Smalltalk :)
And also list.copyWithout(element) that removes all occurrences of an element, which is most useful when used as list.copyWithout(null) to remove unset elements.
I would go for Add, because I can see the benefit of a better name, but the problem would be to find different names for every other immutable operation which might make the class quite unfamiliar if that makes sense.