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

Re: Comments on SRFI 69

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 8/12/05, David Van Horn <dvanhorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> felix winkelmann wrote:
> > As Shiro's
> > cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has
> > (AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern.
> I don't know what you're referring to here.  Are you referring to something
> within the document?  Or something within the discussion archive?

I'm referring to the naming conventions of the hash-table operators
described in the document, of course.

> > BTW, I don't think it makes sense to drag SRFI-44 into this discussion. Since no
> > Scheme system supports it (to my knowledge), it's importance can currently
> > be neglected.
> This is irrelevant.  SRFI 44 outlines a consistent naming scheme and set of
> operators and semantics that future data structure specifications may follow.

The emphasis should be on "may".

>   The SRFI states only that it does not follow these conventions.  My question
> is *why*?  What improvement is made by not following these conventions? 

What improvements are made by following them? Just because they are consistent?