docs/adr/001_design_principles.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Adopt Congruent and Familiar Design For `go-cuckoo`
+# Adopt Parity and Consistency as Principles For `go-cuckoo`
 
-**Status**: Proposed
+**Status**: Accepted
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -15,32 +15,32 @@ While the implementation does work, it lacks direction.
 
 To resolve this, I'm enforcing two new principles onto the contract of `go-cuckoo`:
 
-- **Congruency**:
+- **Parity (with `map`)**:
   A `go-cuckoo` table should have the same core functionality as `map`.
   By 'core', I mean `map`'s built-in syntax and functions (e.g. `range`, `m[k]`), and the `maps` package.
+  Higher parity means users can trust that `go-cuckoo` can do what `map` can do.
 
-- **Familiarity**:
+- **Consistency (with `map`)**:
   A `go-cuckoo` table should behave similarly to `map`, so users will intuitively know how to use it.
-  In effect, its users will carry less cognitive load.
+  Higher consistency lowers the cognitive load users must carry.
 
-These principles should _guide_ the public interface of `go-cuckoo`.
+While these principles should guide the interface of `go-cuckoo`, they should not be absolute.
-Neither should be treated absolutely, though.
+The behavior of `go-cuckoo` is distinct from `map` (e.g. `Put` can fail; see `ErrBadHash`), so do not equate them.
-The behavior of `go-cuckoo` is distinct from `map` (e.g. `Put` can fail; see `ErrBadHash`).
-Do not equate them.
 
 ## Consequences
 
-1. The repository should support both design principles.
+1. The repository should contain a living document, describing the interface differences between `go-cuckoo` and `map`.
-   - [ ] Update the `README.md` and `doc.go` to reflect these principles.
+   I should prioritize limiting any disparity.
-   - [ ] Update the contributing guide and pull request template to require these principles are met.
-2. The repository should contain a living document, describing the interface differences between `go-cuckoo` and `map`.
-   I should prioritize limiting any incongruencies.
    (I already started work on branch `docs/interface-congruency-analysis`.)
-   - [ ] Produce the first draft to uncover any current incongruencies.
+   - [ ] Produce the first draft to uncover any current disparity.
    - [ ] Link the document to the `README.md`.
-3. Analyze the familiarity of `go-cuckoo`'s current interface.
+2. Analyze the consistency of `go-cuckoo`'s current interface.
-   Unlike the analysis of congruency, this should be a one time document.
+   Unlike the analysis of parity, this should be a one time document.
-   Familiarity is implicit to users, and does not need to be referenced.
+   Consistency is implicit to users, and does not need to be referenced.
    But, any rationale should be documented in commit messages, or future ADRs.
    - [ ] Produce the analysis document.
    - [ ] Resolve any issues found.
+3. The repository should support both design principles.
+   As I resolve gaps in parity and consistency, I should feed any reusable heuristics back into the contributing guide.
+   - [ ] State these principles in the `README.md` and `doc.go`.
+   - [ ] Ground the contributing guide and pull request template in these new principles.