Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Jamison Hope 05 Aug 2015 14:33 UTC


On Aug 4, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Bradley Lucier <> wrote:

> 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.

I don't think "eager" is the right word, either.  Retrieving a value via
pointer arithmetic is certainly simple, but it is no more eager than
retrieving a value via a hash table lookup or getting a value out of a
sparse array stored as a linked list (put another way, hash tables and
sparse arrays are not necessarily lazy).

I would suggest "simple-array"; what you're describing is similar to how
that term is used in Common Lisp (although it's not an exact match).

Also, I think John already touched on this, but an array being
fixed/eager/simple/whatever should have no bearing on its mutability.

Jamison Hope