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

Re: constructor naming



 | 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.