Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(11 Aug 2005 14:38 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
Panu Kalliokoski
(12 Aug 2005 09:28 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
Panu Kalliokoski
(12 Aug 2005 09:53 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
felix winkelmann
(12 Aug 2005 12:06 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(12 Aug 2005 19:09 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69 felix winkelmann (12 Aug 2005 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
David Van Horn
(12 Aug 2005 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69
felix winkelmann
(12 Aug 2005 20:35 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on SRFI 69 felix winkelmann 12 Aug 2005 20:12 UTC
On 8/12/05, David Van Horn <xxxxxx@cs.brandeis.edu> wrote: > felix winkelmann wrote: > > As Shiro's > > cross-reference shows, there is a common naming pattern, and Panu has > > (AFAICT) tried to follow that pattern. > > I don't know what you're referring to here. Are you referring to something > within the document? Or something within the discussion archive? I'm referring to the naming conventions of the hash-table operators described in the document, of course. > > > BTW, I don't think it makes sense to drag SRFI-44 into this discussion. Since no > > Scheme system supports it (to my knowledge), it's importance can currently > > be neglected. > > This is irrelevant. SRFI 44 outlines a consistent naming scheme and set of > operators and semantics that future data structure specifications may follow. The emphasis should be on "may". > The SRFI states only that it does not follow these conventions. My question > is *why*? What improvement is made by not following these conventions? What improvements are made by following them? Just because they are consistent? cheers, felix