This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 69 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 69 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Ken Dickey wrote:
Procedure: hash-table-for-each hash-table procTradtionally, one uses a table as the 1st parameter to functions manipulatingtables. But tradtionally, for-each takes a proc and a collection (for-each proc list ...). I would recommend using another name, perhaps table-walk table proc ;; or hash-table-walk or hash-table-for-each proc table As the intent is clearly to treat the table as a collection.Please don't confuse me on parameter order. I get confused easily enough onmy own. 8^) Cheers, -KenD
I agree. The procedure parameter should come first and be consistent with for-each. I feel this is more consistent, and also it allows future extensions of the interface to multiple tables, i.e. (hash-table-for-each proc table1 table2...) The semantics could be to apply proc for each key that is contained in all tables (error or not if some key does not exist in all tables), or to apply proc for each key that appears in table1 and it is an error if a key in table1 does not exist in the other tables. I'm not suggesting that multiple tables be supported by SRFI-69, but please make the interface extensible for allowing this in the future (or as an implementation specific extension). Marc