What's the best name for a non-mutating “add”

Question

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> :)

Answer 1

I'd go with Cons, for one simple reason: it means exactly what you want it to.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.)

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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

1. Definitely an immutable operation
2. Understandable to the majority of users
3. 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

1. Prefix with Immutable: ImmutableTestSuite
2. Add an Attribute which describes the level of Immutablitiy. This is certainly less discoverable
3. 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.

Answer 5

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()

Answer 6

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.