We should admit the inconsistency of ! named procedures. Even I stumbled over the set!-values vs set-values! issue last week. I don't use this enough to recall the name.
On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Nick Shelley <nickmshel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think the only thing to be done now is add `set-values!' as an >>> alias, but that would be inconsistent with `let*-values' and >>> `letrec-values'. >> >> Why not 'set!-id-field-id' as an alias? That seems to be consistent with all >> the others. > > The general naming convention is that imperative procedures end with > `!', which I think is the more significant convention. > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, <nickmshel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> *** Description: >>>> I don't think there's much that can be done now, but I just wanted to >>>> point out that set! function names are inconsistent. When a struct is >>>> mutable, you get set-id-field-id! functions, but setting multiple values is >>>> called set!-values. >>> >>> I think the only thing to be done now is add `set-values!' as an >>> alias, but that would be inconsistent with `let*-values' and >>> `letrec-values'. >>> -- >>> sam th >>> sa...@ccs.neu.edu >> >> > > > > -- > sam th > sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
