[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: record-mutator vs record-modifier
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:48:25 -0800
From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
However, SRFI-76 uses record-mutator where SLIB uses record-modifier.
Is there any reason for the for this difference? I think that the
old name is better than the new name, so why change it? I gues the
word "modifier" is somewhat overloaded (it could also be something
like an adjective or adverb that modifies some other action), but
at least it's a "real word", unlike "mutator". The arguments either
way don't seem strong either way, which argues for using the old name,
especially given that other record-XXX functions keep the old names.
Aside from the reason Mike gave, there's also the point that 'modify'
often refers to taking the old value of a field, passing it to some
function, and setting the field's value to be whatever the function
returns; e.g., ((RECORD-MODIFIER <rtd> <field>) <record> (LAMBDA (X)
(+ X 1))) might increment <field> in <record>. This use of the term
'modify' dates at least back to T in the eighties, where there was a
MODIFY macro that worked on its generalized SET. I'm not fond of the
term 'mutator' either, but I think 'modifier' is no better; I think I
might prefer RECORD-SETTER, but I don't have a really good suggestion.
And I'd rather not have the reflection interface specified at all, or
at least relegated to a different specification.