Re: constructor naming Aubrey Jaffer 09 Jan 2004 03:09 UTC
| X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] | Old-Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org> | From: Taylor Campbell <email@example.com> | Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:06:29 -0500 | Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org | X-Mailing-List: <email@example.com> archive/latest/28 | X-Loop: firstname.lastname@example.org | Resent-Sender: email@example.com | | | On Jan 5, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Aubrey Jaffer wrote: | | > | From: Taylor Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> | > | 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. Excellent point! I will restore the make-array name and put this paragraph in the Issues section: The make-array arguments are different from the same-named procedure in SRFI-25. Type dispatch on the first argument to make-array could support both SRFIs simultaneously.