Check the functional-perl website for properly formatted versions of these documents.

There are many function and module names that have doubtful names. If you've got some comments on some names, like how the same or similar functions are named in other languages or ideas on how they could be named for more consistency, please tell.

This list of doubtful names is not exhaustive.

• is it badly inconsistent to have names like map_with_tail but have the tail-taking function be named rest?
• should FORCE from FP::Lazy be renamed to Force to avoid the potential conflict with use PXML::Tags 'force' ?
• rename PXML to FXML (functional XML)?
• array_to_hash_group_by
• compose_1side
• pxml_map_elements_exhaustively
• should stream_iota be renamed or have different arguments? Compare with APL etc. Also stream_range, stream_step_range.
• FP::Repl::WithRepl, WithRepl_eval, FP::Repl::Trap
• FP::Struct: rename to FP::Class or should that name remain reserved for a new implementation on top of Moose or something?
• should null always be used, including instead of empty_trie etc. (i.e. rename those to null_trie etc.)?
• poptionally in FP::Optional
• flip2of3, rot3right, rot3left in FP::Combinators

Also:

• should the 'x' prefix often used in procedure/function names to signify exceptions on errors be dropped, since we're using maybe_ or perhaps_ if it's not signaling exceptions? E.g. Clojure uses lineseq and implies exceptions: should we use such "nice and short" names, too? This one looks a bit too short, file_lines may be more like it. And imply exceptions? Or is it still worthwhile to remind that there are cases in rather normal execution that throw exceptions? (Also, xopen etc. are special since there the x is necessary to differentiate from the x-less builtin of the same name.)