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

Re: Comments on SRFI 69

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?