Re: fixed-array => special-array or specialized-array ??? Jamison Hope 01 Sep 2015 19:11 UTC

On Aug 31, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Bradley Lucier <> wrote:

> On 08/31/2015 05:49 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>> Bradley Lucier scripsit:
>>> I've sort of given up trying to get a descriptive word that
>>> describes what makes fixed-arrays special or specialized, so I'd
>>> just like to change it to special-array (as it's shorter than
>>> specialized-array).
>> How about using general-array for what you now call arrays, and use
>> array for the fixed-arrays, then?  Move the generality up one level,
>> so to speak.
> Well, I prefer array-map, array-curry, etc., to general-array-map, general-array-curry, ...

You could still call them that, right?  array-setter only works with
mutable-arrays, but it's not called mutable-array-setter.

Maybe this is a silly question, but does the SRFI even need to mention
fixed-arrays and mutable-arrays as types with their own functions?
If the point of this library is to make various indexable things look
like arrays, and enable uniform access to them, then shouldn't it just
offer functions that operate on generalized arrays?  (Why do we need to
have fixed-array-curry and mutable-array-curry?  Shouldn't everything
just use array-curry?)

Jamison Hope