Message.Check() error

[eaburns]

Add Message.Check() error.

It should do semantic checking on a parsed message. For example, according to RFC 2812, "Channels names are strings … of length up to fifty (50) characters." We never check that anywhere. We just check simple things like the entire message length, and we have no way to check that out-going message, constructed by a user, are OK.

[mccoyst]

There's something about the name "Check" that I don't like — maybe that it's a gerund. But I can't think of anything better. "Validate" is eh.

[skiesel]

"Verify" or "Inspect"

[eaburns]

Vet?

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, 10:12 Scott Kiesel notifications@github.com wrote:

"Verify" or "Inspect"

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).

[eaburns]

It's going to return an error or nil. How about Error. if m.Error() != nil

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, 10:15 Ethan Burns burns.ethan@gmail.com wrote:

Vet?

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, 10:12 Scott Kiesel notifications@github.com wrote:

"Verify" or "Inspect"

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).

[chrissexton]

I like Vet if Check is out. None of them really bother me though. If we're just going to thesaurus it to hell: Ratify.

[mccoyst]

@eaburns, how about Err, a la bufio.Scanner

[eaburns]

I thought about that, but I like the consistency of using whole words. Is
it worth dropping two letters?

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, 15:47 Steve McCoy notifications@github.com wrote:

@eaburns https://github.com/eaburns, how about Err, a la bufio.Scanner
http://golang.org/pkg/bufio/#Scanner.Err

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment).

[mccoyst]

Err is a word.

[mccoyst]

Plus, Error, would be a bit weird, given the error interface

[eaburns]

Ok