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)
|
Laziness (was: Terminology) John Cowan 05 Aug 2015 16:54 UTC
Bradley Lucier scripsit: > 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. Well, the general arrays in this proposal may be lazy, in the sense that the getter may compute the value for a given index tuple only when asked for it, and indeed may change it arbitrarily at any time. I wanted to address the question of the laziness of procedures. I am neutral on this point (except as addressed in something I will get to in a later post), but it seems to me that there needs to be an operation that, given an array constructed by a sequence of array procedures, produces a realized array. The natural name for this would be array-copy, I think; it would take an arbitrary array and produce a corresponding fixed-array. The utility of this would be to allow array B to be created from array A by array operations, and then copied so that A can become garbage. That suggests realized-array as a possible name for fixed-arrays. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. --Lord Macnaghten (1901)