[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: constructor naming
| X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206]
| 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.