From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mikael Djurfeldt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Generalized vs generic Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:55:30 +0100 Message-ID: <66e540fe05021202554b4f9b42@mail.gmail.com> References: <66e540fe05021001586e652353@mail.gmail.com> <874qgizsq2.fsf@zip.com.au> Reply-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1108209707 22719 80.91.229.2 (12 Feb 2005 12:01:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Mikael Djurfeldt Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 12 13:01:47 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Czvxz-0001Me-8b for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:01:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CzwD6-0005H6-LW for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:17:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Czvcp-0002In-53 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:39:51 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CzvVr-0001mn-L8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:32:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CzvUP-0001aO-LD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:31:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [64.233.170.201] (helo=rproxy.gmail.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Czuvz-0002js-Nr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:55:31 -0500 Original-Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id y7so442407rne for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:55:30 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=rBH/kqJwVyWbSh2baPUAAhMXaVav5cGeF5GKfpvgjwKxE5rv5xfB8sRgcfsDNRom1WfCRNs3BcTOqGTUlKeLLMqgKoZczQfU5CLZlUNgZ8WKS2dlq8DxjytcTq/M7BSDgD2ZdlY3khPRGo4+Qhd3CKQ3LpN/GdCz2Tg0OrSr+wQ= Original-Received: by 10.38.163.44 with SMTP id l44mr187140rne; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:55:30 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.38.104.39 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:55:30 -0800 (PST) Original-To: Kevin Ryde , guile-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <874qgizsq2.fsf@zip.com.au> X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4778 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4778 On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:34:13 +1100, Kevin Ryde wrote: > Mikael Djurfeldt 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