On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:34:13 +1100, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikael Djurfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > To me, the name "generalized_vector" feels a bit odd and heavy. > > Looking in the dictionaries, it seems like the term "generic_vector" > > would be more fitting. What do the native English speakers say? > > I would steer clear of "generic", since it has a specific meaning for > goops.
Well, to me that specific meaning---a function that can operate on any of a set of types---is just another example of what we have here: a vector that can be any of a set of types, so my view is that its just an advantage to use the same term. > Shortening to perhaps "general" would read fine to me. But is it OK to keep generalized? Because if it is, then it would just be silly to make any change. M _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
