Re: [Chicken-users] Re: sequences egg

[F. Wittenberger]

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.

The one improvement for my programming envt recently was, that I'm
pretty free to rename on input.  (So far, the only practical syntax for
that I've seen in Sather, which never too off.)

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.