[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: name an array function
From: |
Daniel Llorens |
Subject: |
Re: name an array function |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:42:58 +0100 |
On 21 Nov 2016, at 14:24, address@hidden wrote:
> So should "slice" prevail, it'd make sense to "invert" the star
> (array-slice corresponding to array-from* and vice-versa)?
I think it's more important to give the simpler names to the functions that are
more commonly used. So I would keep the name array-slice* for the function that
returns #0(a), in spite of logic.
Of course, that's one reason why I don't like array-slice too much!
> Had I to look it up by name without any idea of what to look
> for, I'd never come up with array-from, whereas I'd have a faint
> chance of coming up with array-slice; that said, the most
> ergonomic choice would still be (an extension of) array-ref et
> al. or some close relative.
Yeah, I do see your point.
- name an array function, Daniel Llorens, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function, Stefan Israelsson Tampe, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function, tomas, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function, Daniel Llorens, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function, tomas, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function,
Daniel Llorens <=
- Re: name an array function, tomas, 2016/11/21
- Re: name an array function, Daniel Llorens, 2016/11/23
- Re: name an array function, tomas, 2016/11/23
- Re: name an array function, David Pirotte, 2016/11/23
Re: name an array function, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2016/11/21