This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 43 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 43 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Michael Burschik wrote: > I like the idea of VECTOR-SPLIT-ON instead of VECTOR-SPAN. Indeed, > VECTOR-SPAN is -very- non-intuitive. Should only a couple more > people agree with us, then I'll change VECTOR-SPAN to > VECTOR-SPLIT-ON. I'm *passionately* ambivalent about this. I believe that the span/break terminology stems from the C library functions strbrk() and strspan(). They *are* non-intuitive until you've gotten them wedged in your head. OTOH, I'm no great fan of multiple names for similiar semantic structures, so consistency w/SRFI-1 naming is important to me. In summary I'm going to bitch about it either way, but I think I will be less annoyed by sticking with span/break terminology. YMMV. > > I also noticed that several functions are available in two very similar > > versions: one that takes a single vector and optional start/end > > arguments, and one that takes several vector arguments. A single, > > more general function might be more desirable Not to this chicken. > have a 'VECTOR-FOO,' which took a vector, ... > and a 'VECTORS-FOO,' which took any number of vectors I can live with that. Yep. But you need to keep the simple interfaces around, they will surely get the most use. I think it is very easy to get drawn into an overkill mode with this kind of specification... FWIW, is the document at srfi.schemers.org up to date? david rush -- Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing. -- Wernher von Braun