Rename test::BenchHarness to test::Bencher

[liigo]

test::BenchHarness is too long, and not that straightforward. As a type name Bencher is more consistent with #[bench] attributes.

#[cfg(test)]
mod bench {
    use test::Bencher;

    #[bench]
    pub fn foo(b: &mut Bencher) {
    }
}

[huonw]

I disagree entirely that BenchHarness is not meaningful: it's the harness/framework/manager that coordinates running a benchmark.

In any case, BenchHarness is not a benchmark itself, which is what the Bench name suggests to me. Bencher would be ok, I guess.

[pongad]

+1 for Bencher. Short and descriptive :D

[liigo]

changing issue's title to use new name Bencher

[liigo]

@huonw What is "harness" meaning? Perhaps it's meaningful, but it's not straightforward, at least for non-native English users. (I have changed issue content, +1 for Bencher.)

[huonw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_harness

[liigo]

How about rename it to test::B? (like Golang did)

[pongad]

Not sure if this is a good idea. In general Rust names are more verbose
than Go's. I don't mean it in the bad way. For example, we have
BufferedReader when Go has bufio.Reader. It is just different style. I
think test::B would be too inconsistent.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Liigo Zhuang [email protected]:

How about rename it to test::B? (like Golang did)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12640#issuecomment-36587077
.

[liigo]

@pongad In Rust, there are also names such as Items Chars returns Iterator type, without "Iterator" in their names.

[liigo]

ping. @huonw and @pongad had suggested or +1 for Bencher, is there anyone oppose this rename? If no, I'll submit a PR to implement it later. @alexcrichton ?

[alexcrichton]

Let's do it.