Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sequences egg

[Felix]

From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sequences egg
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:59:25 +0100

> Am Sonntag, den 21.11.2010, 18:08 +0100 schrieb Felix:
>> > So, I wonder, why not use the same conventions? Instead, I see names
>> > like 'size', 'elt', etc. Wouldn't it be clearer to use names like
>> > sequence-length, or, if that is too verbose, seq-length, etc...?
>> 
>> I wanted to avoid name-clashes. For example (the admittedly somewhat
>> silly (sillily? siciliy?) named) `smap': `map' is so basic and used
> 
> Si...
> 
> Don't feel offended, Felix.

I'M NOT OFFENDED, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! 

> If I had to deal with a name clash, I'd just put a renamer-module in
> between.
> 
> This winds up in *much* less mental effort, than memorising new terms or
> abbreviations for the same argument structure (modulo some type
> replacements).
> 
> Given (import (prefix __ X)) I'd encourage everyone to use the most
> generic forms like "fold", "map", "+" etc. for equivalent procedures
> whenever exported.
> (Something I'd love to do for years, but always felt impractical for
> hysterical reasons.)
> 
> If that's not what you want, a simple text replacement could provide top
> level definitions which never clash.  And for wherever modules are used,
> it's just a matter of a prefix upon import.

Good point. Yet, it may be very confusing for someone looking at code,
at least for standard bread-and-butter procedures like `map' and
`length'. 


cheers,
felix