Revisit use of the name `pass` about qi HOT 2 OPEN

While I like allow/deny, have we considered calling _ the "identity" or "do-nothing" flow?

FWIW I think Python's pass is more like ground or void since it returns None.

from qi.

Identity doesn't feel too bad on its own (and I think we do refer to it that way in our heads), but as a specialized term it feels unwieldy, esp. for non-math folks. For example:

(~> (1 2 3 4 5) (== identity
                    sqr
                    identity
                    identity
                    add1) +)

It also collides with Racket's identity but has slightly different behavior (i.e. values), and that could be confusing.

That's true re: pass in python, it's not quite the same.

"do-nothing" flow, usable but also unwieldy and doesn't suggest a simple form name. Would be ideal for it to be a verb.

Another possibility is to use uppercase PASS, the same way and (predicate) and AND (boolean gate) are different in Qi.

One useful thing about changing pass itself is that it would be a convenient and relatively challenging proving ground for our backwards compatibility model, including providing parsers to automatically migrate code, etc. -- not that that's a good reason on its own of course.

from qi.