From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sequences egg Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:59:25 +0100
> Am Sonntag, den 21.11.2010, 18:08 +0100 schrieb Felix: >> > So, I wonder, why not use the same conventions? Instead, I see names >> > like 'size', 'elt', etc. Wouldn't it be clearer to use names like >> > sequence-length, or, if that is too verbose, seq-length, etc...? >> >> I wanted to avoid name-clashes. For example (the admittedly somewhat >> silly (sillily? siciliy?) named) `smap': `map' is so basic and used > > Si... > > Don't feel offended, Felix. I'M NOT OFFENDED, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! > If I had to deal with a name clash, I'd just put a renamer-module in > between. > > This winds up in *much* less mental effort, than memorising new terms or > abbreviations for the same argument structure (modulo some type > replacements). > > Given (import (prefix __ X)) I'd encourage everyone to use the most > generic forms like "fold", "map", "+" etc. for equivalent procedures > whenever exported. > (Something I'd love to do for years, but always felt impractical for > hysterical reasons.) > > If that's not what you want, a simple text replacement could provide top > level definitions which never clash. And for wherever modules are used, > it's just a matter of a prefix upon import. Good point. Yet, it may be very confusing for someone looking at code, at least for standard bread-and-butter procedures like `map' and `length'. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
