On Jan 5, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

>  | From: Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx>
>  | Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:07:43 -0500
>  |
>  | Why was the constructor renamed to CREATE-ARRAY?
>
> So that it won't conflict with SRFI-25.

But ARRAY-SET! et alia conflict, too.  The argument you give for that,
'just
use type dispatch,' works for MAKE-ARRAY, too.

>> From: Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:44:16 -0500 (EST)
>>
>>  |     * Subject: compatibility
>>  |     * From: Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com>
>>  |     * Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:04:15 -0800
>>  |
>>  | While the SRFI process allows alternative and incompatible
>>  | implementations, a meta-goal is to define APIs that can be portable
>>  | across Scheme implementations.  This new specification touches on
>>  | existing SRFIs 4 and 25, both of which have been implemented by a
>>  | number of Scheme systems.  While in theory it may be possible to
>>  | implement both SRFIs 25 and 47 at the same time (by descriminating
>>  | of the parameters to make-array), that would be a fragile hack.
>>  |
>>  | The new SRFI is deliberately incompatible with a prior SRFI, and
>>  | one that is implemented in multiple Scheme systems.
>>
>> You have it backwards!  As the appended SRFI-25 message shows, it was
>> their decision to be deliberately incompatible with SLIB and its
>> installed base. ...
>
>  | Everywhere else it's MAKE-foo: R5RS's MAKE-VECTOR & MAKE-STRING,
>  | SRFI 1's MAKE-LIST, SRFI 25's MAKE-ARRAY, et cetera;
>
> CREATE-ARRAY can create uniform arrays of various types.  The
> procedures you mention do not; (MAKE-STRING can return char arrays
> only).  MAKE-ARRAY is incompatable with the others in that its first
> argument is not (necessarily) an integer.

Again, if you're OK with the conflict with ARRAY-SET!, then you should
be OK
with the conflict with MAKE-ARRAY.

>  | I think that CREATE-ARRAY breaks a lot of consistency.
>
> SRFI-47 array procedures have a different consistency:
>
>         (create-array  proto        bound1 bound2 ...)
>    (make-shared-array  array mapper bound1 bound2 ...)
>           (array-set!  array obj    index1 index2 ...)
>     (array-in-bounds?  array        index1 index2 ...)
>            (array-ref  array        index1 index2 ...)

I wasn't referring to argument list consistency; I was referring to
naming
consistency.  Much Scheme code I read & write uses MAKE- as any kind of
constructor, be it for indexed or record structures.  The basic idea
that I've
seen: MAKE-... is the basic constructor, with others built on top of it
(e.g.,
MAKE-STRING & STRING)

>  | I didn't see any consensus on renaming on this mailing list,
>  | either...
>
> The only occurence of the word "consensus" in
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html is:
>
>   In particular, lack of a reference implementation (as defined above)
>   is grounds for rejection. This can only occur if the ``reference
>   implementation'' requirement is being met by an outlined
>   implementation (type 5), and there is consensus that the
>   implementation outline is not adequate. Note that this is never a
>   permanent rejection, because creation of an implementation of one of
>   the other types is a complete refutation of this basis for
>   rejection.
>
> Which doesn't apply to SRFI-47.

OK, let me rephrase: I didn't see _anything_ on this mailing list
regarding
renaming MAKE-ARRAY.