Re: streams are cool, you could stream virtually anything!

[Michael Heerdegen]

Artur Malabarba <address@hidden> writes:

> I dunno. The way I think of streams it makes perfect sense to have a
> pop without a push. But maybe that's just me. You could call it
> stream-next or something like that, so people won't be confused by the
> lack of push.

I'm ok with not adding a push, I'm too not sure if it could ever be
useful.

OTOH, it has advantages to keep the name `pop': it's easy to discover,
and if there are people requesting it for good reasons, we can still add
it later without having to rename the other thing to "pop" again.

Streams are analogous to lists in many regards, but are different in
some aspects too, so I don't think it's a problem per se when there are
functions named analogously, and related functions are different or
named different or missing.

If you name it `stream-next', I guess most people will wonder anyway
"ok, that's probably just pop, but where's the push, or does that make
no sense?".  And when they use it the second time, they will wonder
"Mmh, I know it was _not_ named `stream-pop' - but what was the name
again?".


Michael.