Generalized vs generic

Generalized vs generic

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

I've started to adapt my applications to the new vector and array interfaces.

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?

Should we use the names:

scm_is_generic_vector
scm_c_generic_vector_length
etc

instead of the current:

scm_is_generalized_vector
scm_c_generalized_vector_length
etc

?

M


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Generalized vs generic

[Kevin Ryde]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdjurfeldt@gmail.com> 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.

Shortening to perhaps "general" would read fine to me.


Something like "any-vector-ref" may be an option, since there's no
such thing as a generalized vector, they're just functions for
accessing any vector.

Except "any" doesn't read terribly well to me, it's a bit close to
srfi-1 `any' for a start.  Some other similar word maybe.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Generalized vs generic

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:34:13 +1100, Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> wrote:
> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdjurfeldt@gmail.com> 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
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Generalized vs generic

[Kevin Ryde]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdjurfeldt@gmail.com> writes:
>
> 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.

Sounds fair.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Generalized vs generic

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdjurfeldt@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Sounds fair.

I am fine with changing "generalized" to "generic" as well.  Mikael,
please go ahead, if you want to.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel