More names nitpicking
Michael Burschik
(09 Apr 2003 08:08 UTC)
|
Re: More names nitpicking Taylor Campbell (09 Apr 2003 18:24 UTC)
|
Re: More names nitpicking
David Rush
(23 Apr 2003 09:06 UTC)
|
Re: More names nitpicking Taylor Campbell 09 Apr 2003 18:24 UTC
On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Michael Burschik wrote: > Section 4.3 defines the function vector-split-at. The example, > however, uses > the name vector-split. This error does not occur in the reference > implementation, by the way. Whoops. > Given the rather lucid name vector-split-at /index/, wouldn't > vector-split-on /predicate/ be better than vector-break (even if this > follows the traditions established in SRFI-1)? And is it really > necessary to > define both vector-span and vector-break, which differ only in > negating the > predicate? The same applies to vector-index and vector-skip. I like the idea of VECTOR-SPLIT-ON instead of VECTOR-SPAN. Indeed, VECTOR-SPAN is -very- non-intuitive. Should only a couple more people agree with us, then I'll change VECTOR-SPAN to VECTOR-SPLIT-ON. About VECTOR-BREAK, I'll wait to see what more people have to say about it. I personally don't care either way. > I also noticed that several functions are available in two very similar > versions: one that takes a single vector and optional start/end > arguments, > and one that takes several vector arguments. A single, more general > function > might be more desirable, although there would be some overhead dealing > with > keywords or argument types. I noticed this, too, and couldn't really decide which should take ranges and which should take any number of vectors. I considered using what Sunterlib's collection library used, which was to have a 'VECTOR-FOO,' which took a vector, some other arguments, and a range; and a 'VECTORS-FOO,' which took any number of vectors and whatever other arguments. This seemed a little excessive, though, so I didn't do it, but if there is a general consensus that people would like to do things that way, I'd be happy to include them. > The function vector-map/index requires a procedure that takes an index > and > some number of vectors as arguments. However, the required index > argument is > passed as the last instead of the first argument. I find this > non-intuitive, > and someone might want to define a procedure that takes an index and a > _variable_ number of vectors as arguments. I agree that this is a little non-intuitive. I made the index be the last argument merely because SRFIs 1 and 13 had their LIST/STRING-FOLD and such functions take the KNIL argument last (and if there are several people who would like me to change that, too, I'd be happy to), so I made the index argument be last. > > Regards > > Michael Burschik >