I have no preference for the name, but I agree there's no reason to divide this functionality in two.
On Feb 28, 2015 1:49 PM, "Eli Zaretskii" <
address@hidden> wrote:
> From: Nicolas Petton <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:24:55 +0100
>
> I'm working on another library similar to seq.el but for maps (alists
> and hash-tables for now).
>
> I have an issue with naming regarding mapping over keys/values of a
> map. I thought about calling `map-map' the function that would map over
> the keys and values of map, and `map-map-keys' the function that would
> map over the keys of a map, etc.
Are there any reasons why we couldn't have map-keys that could accept
any object where such an operation makes sense? IOW, why do we have
to use different functions for different classes of objects, instead
of having a single polymorphic interface? That would solve the naming
issue as a nice side effect, and more importantly, will allow the
programmer to remember fewer symbols.