generic method names for collections

[Ian Bicking <ian@bickiia.earlhall.earlham.edu>]

Jay Glascoe writes:
> But anyway, I see no reason why generic method names need be tied down to
> the meaningless triplet ref/set!/del!  We should choose more
> understandable names for the benefit of Scheme-newcomers. 

Why not just have two forms, then...?  Stick with the traditional
Scheme table-set!/ref/etc., where the type prepends the accessor and
the accessor fits in with vector-ref, vector-set!, etc.

If/when there is an object system the generic collection accessors can 
be given more appropriate names.


And, FWIW, I think "table" is a decent name -- if you want to know
that tables are hash tables and have O(1) access time, you can
probably guess or look it up if you *really* want to be sure.  It's
just that "hash" is such an arbitrary word, it offends my aesthetic
inclinations.


<------------------------------------------------------------------->
< Ian Bicking                 |  bickiia@earlham.edu                >
< drawer #419 Earlham College |  http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia >
< Richmond, IN 47374          |  (765) 973-2824                     >
<------------------------------------------------------------------->