Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? John Cowan 25 Aug 2015 12:37 UTC

Bradley Lucier scripsit:

> I'm leaning towards "simple-array", so what do you think are the issues?

I was concerned that it might confuse Common Lispers, but on reflection
I don't think it will, even though it's possible for a simple-array to
be displaced to (i.e. share bodies with) with another simple-array.
The more important point is that it is not adjustable (that is, the
dimensions can be mutated without breaking eq?).

So sure, "simple-array" is fine.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
By naming the names they rejoiced in the complexity and specificity,
the wealth and beauty of the world, they participated in the fullness of
being. They described, they named, they told all about everything. But
they did not pray for anything.  --Le Guin, The Telling