Re: name an array function

[tomas@tuxteam.de]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:42:58PM +0100, Daniel Llorens wrote:
> 
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 14:24, tomas@tuxteam.de 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.

I (politely) disagree: the most "commonly" used function is
already array-ref, so you would seldomly use array-from/slice
for a scalar result (the rank-0 result will be more frequent,
because there's no substitute). But hey, as I said.

> Of course, that's one reason why I don't like array-slice too much!

Understood.

> > 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.

Thanks
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgy/PkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kakUQCfTVxPE7aXqyQkTYqQ6b7J1nyx
tMYAnRnSrx4airVvEs9gywUJ2MIY4jJJ
=lTwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----