Re: [Chicken-users] How do I name these procedures?

[Jeronimo Pellegrini]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:33:51PM +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
> Hello Jeronimo,
> 
> thinking about it, I would only provide two wrappers per function: One
> destructive version that accepts two mandatory input arguments and an
> optional output argument defaulting to the first input argument. And
> one non-destructive version that accepts just the two input
> arguments and allocates an output target.
> 
> The code would look like this:
> 
>   (define (ia+! a b #!optional [out a])
>     ((foreign-lambda void "mpfi_add" c-pointer c-pointer c-pointer)
>      out a b)
>     out)

OK, that sounds much better!

I wonder if the optional argument would make the function call too much
slower?

>   (define (ia+ a b)
>     (ia+! a b (make-ia-interval)))

> I would also just prefix the operator names with characters, not
> suffix them — mostly because of the stylistic similarity to existing
> bindings like fx+.

But there's a difference between these two:

ia+ia (sums two intervals)
ia+f64 (sums an interval to a flonum)

Using only ia+ would mean checking the type inside the procedure, which
I'd like to avoid.

J.