Re: Terminology: fixed-array => eager-array? Jamison Hope 25 Aug 2015 15:29 UTC

On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:37 AM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> 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.

Just to muddy up the water a bit, what about "ordinary-array"?  They're
ordinary in the sense that they're what we usually think of as arrays in
programming languages, and they're also ordinary in that elements are
accessed by ordinal position.  And, it doesn't conflict with existing
terminology from Lisp.

--
Jamison Hope
xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu