From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: name an array function Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:56:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20161121135609.GA15712@tuxteam.de> References: <20161121125556.GA12982@tuxteam.de> <89CFAA9E-77F7-4428-AA59-72F9AB8796D7@bluewin.ch> <20161121132405.GA14580@tuxteam.de> <464A9A58-83D3-4C53-A936-BC2C83BC402C@bluewin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1479736609 16140 195.159.176.226 (21 Nov 2016 13:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 13:56:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: Daniel Llorens Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 21 14:56:46 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p5N-0002ir-Ae for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:56:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49614 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p5Q-0004V5-St for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:56:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57744) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p55-0004Un-3g for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:56:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p50-00045w-99 for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:56:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:56293 helo=tomasium.tuxteam.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p50-00045f-2o for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 08:56:18 -0500 Original-Received: from tomas by tomasium.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1c8p4r-00048W-NR; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:56:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <464A9A58-83D3-4C53-A936-BC2C83BC402C@bluewin.ch> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 5.199.139.25 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:13000 Archived-At: -----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-----