[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: map.el and naming
From: |
Yuri Khan |
Subject: |
Re: map.el and naming |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:22:44 +0600 |
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:
> > So it seems the alternative is between finding a replacement for the
> > "map, the type" (where "dict" is the best candidate so far) and finding
> > a replacement for "map, the operation" (not sure what the best
> > candidates would be here, maybe "iterate", or "loop", or "visit"?).
>
> Try "visit", please. Iterate and loop imply linear order to some
> extent, and people often assume the order is stable against insertion.
> (Yeah, I know, in fact "iterate" doesn't imply any such thing, and the
> implication in "loop" is pretty weak. It's just that I've seen this
> happen with "iterate" in Python.)
Another term is “for-each”, although it also has a slight connotation
that the function being mapped over the collection is called primarily
for its side effect rather than return value.
- Re: map.el and naming, (continued)
- Re: map.el and naming, John Yates, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, John Mastro, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, Daniel Colascione, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Nicolas Petton, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming,
Yuri Khan <=
- Re: map.el and naming, Nicolas Petton, 2015/04/12