commit 4b7aff630a8d6f5401d069582f35cd15514654ad
author Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net> Wed Nov 14 14:05:19 2018 -0800
committer Joe Tsai <thebrokentoaster@gmail.com> Wed Nov 14 23:03:53 2018 +0000
tree c6639fa68f16c66901f7f50fb783dc9eccb7fc38
parent f0c01e459b184266d93e108bd7ee7ad603f9b534

all: rename Vector as List

The terminology Vector does not occur in protobuf documentation at all,
so we should rename the Go use of the term to something more recognizable.
As such, all instances that match the regexp "[Vv]ect(or)?" were replaced.

The C++ documentation uses the term "Repeated", which is a reasonable name.
However, the term became overloaded in 2014, when maps were added as a feature
and implementated under the hood as repeated fields. This is confusing as it
means "repeated" could either refer to repeated fields proper (i.e., explicitly
marked with the "repeated" label in the proto file) or map fields. In the case
of the C++ reflective API, this is not a problem since repeated fields proper
and map fields are interacted with through the same RepeatedField type.

In Go, we do not use a single type to handle both types of repeated fields:
1) We are coming up with the Go protobuf reflection API for the first time
and so do not need to piggy-back on the repeated fields API to remain backwards
compatible since no former usages of Go protobuf reflection exists.
2) Map fields are commonly represented in Go as the Go map type, which do not
preserve ordering information. As such it is fundamentally impossible to present
an unordered map as a consistently ordered list. Thus, Go needs two different
interfaces for lists and maps.

Given the above situation, "Repeated" is not a great term to use since it
refers to two different things (when we only want one of the meanings).
To distinguish between the two, we'll use the terms "List" and "Map" instead.
There is some precedence for the term "List" in the protobuf codebase
(e.g., "getRepeatedInt32List").

Change-Id: Iddcdb6b78e1e60c14fa4ca213c15f45e214b967b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/149657
Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com>