Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Bradley Lucier (05 Aug 2015 00:55 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Jamison Hope (05 Aug 2015 14:33 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? John Cowan (05 Aug 2015 17:46 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Bradley Lucier (17 Aug 2015 19:25 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? John Cowan (25 Aug 2015 12:37 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Jamison Hope (25 Aug 2015 15:29 UTC)
Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Bradley Lucier (31 Aug 2015 00:26 UTC)
Laziness (was: Terminology) John Cowan (05 Aug 2015 16:55 UTC)

Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Bradley Lucier 05 Aug 2015 00:54 UTC

I believe that racket uses strict-array for what this SRFI calls fixed-array.

As a mathematician I’m always making up terms, usually just locally in a paper, and like many others I get lazy and say that some object is “admissible” if some condition holds, or use a similarly generic term.  This type of terminology will never be picked up by other people.

So I think that terminology should be more particular than strict-<whatever>.

So how about “eager-array”?  Eager’s the opposite of lazy (there are no lazy arrays in this proposal), and it could indicate that the values that the getter returns are pre-computed and accessed with a simple memory reference.

Comments?

Brad