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