[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: constructor naming

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 47 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 47 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.



 | X-Originating-IP: [18.7.21.145]
 | Old-Return-Path: <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 | From: Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 | Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:06:29 -0500
 | Resent-From: srfi-47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 | X-Mailing-List: <srfi-47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> archive/latest/28
 | X-Loop: srfi-47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 | Resent-Sender: srfi-47-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 | 
 | 
 | On Jan 5, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
 | 
 | >  | From: Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 | >  | Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:07:43 -0500
 | >  |
 | >  | Why was the constructor renamed to CREATE-ARRAY?
 | >
 | > So that it won't conflict with SRFI-25.
 | 
 | But ARRAY-SET! et alia conflict, too.  The argument you give for
 | that, 'just use type dispatch,' works for MAKE-ARRAY, too.

Excellent point!  I will restore the make-array name and put this
paragraph in the Issues section:

 The make-array arguments are different from the same-named procedure
 in SRFI-25. Type dispatch on the first argument to make-array could
 support both SRFIs simultaneously.