On 8/12/05, David Van Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
