This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Jay Glascoe writes: > But anyway, I see no reason why generic method names need be tied down to > the meaningless triplet ref/set!/del! We should choose more > understandable names for the benefit of Scheme-newcomers. Why not just have two forms, then...? Stick with the traditional Scheme table-set!/ref/etc., where the type prepends the accessor and the accessor fits in with vector-ref, vector-set!, etc. If/when there is an object system the generic collection accessors can be given more appropriate names. And, FWIW, I think "table" is a decent name -- if you want to know that tables are hash tables and have O(1) access time, you can probably guess or look it up if you *really* want to be sure. It's just that "hash" is such an arbitrary word, it offends my aesthetic inclinations. <-------------------------------------------------------------------> < Ian Bicking | bickiia@earlham.edu > < drawer #419 Earlham College | http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia > < Richmond, IN 47374 | (765) 973-2824 > <------------------------------------------------------------------->