[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Glenn S. Burke <GSB%JASPER@LIVE-OAK.LCS.MIT.EDU>
- Subject: SIMPLE-VECTOR
- From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 18:03 EDT
- Cc: DALY@ibm.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <870602215436.6.GSB@DWORKIN.PALLADIAN.COM>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 21:54 EDT
From: Glenn S. Burke <gsb@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM>
Historically, SIMPLE-VECTOR is a contraction of SIMPLE-GENERAL-VECTOR, i.e.
(SIMPLE-ARRAY T (*)) -- it IS intentionally like SIMPLE-STRING. The name got
contracted because many got bent out of shape by the length of SIMPLE-GENERAL-VECTOR,
and I guess no one argued (strongly enough?) against the inconsistent nomenclature.
I was just guessing, since I didn't pay attention when this was discussed.
I think this has caused enough confusion to require attention and an eventual change,
but I am against any reinterpretation of the meaning in the current CL incarnation.
Without looking, i would bet that the only inconsistency is in the name itself, and
the manual is fairly clear on what it means.
Right, I believe the manual is consistant. Perhaps the cleanup to be done
here is to note (in the next printing of the manual?) that the terminology is
Unfortunately, leaving it inconsistant means this highly-specific and less
useful thing is taking up the obvious name for a less-specific and more
flexible and useful thing. What would one call this more useful thing?
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>