I'm not convinced actually... but I can't properly express my type safety / flexibility concerns on this smartphone. I'll try to monkey with any available patches tonight, and maybe demonstrate what I mean by need for flexibility.
-jake On Apr 18, 2010 11:05 AM, "Sean Owen" <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: On keeping 'name': sure, I don't mind being conservative. I would like to keep name in the form on NamedVector. As it happens, name is actually barely used right now -- if you can wade through the patch you can see there's just a few instances, the ones in mind now. Making NamedVector is, it seems, at worst a waste of time since it may be scrapped. It's my time so waste so I don't mind. I can also see that it's conceivable that a vector name would be used, whether or not it is now. But it is used now, just a little, even if we're saying that could be 'fixed'. What's the issue with reducers dealing with NamedVector? They either need named vectors conceptually, or don't. Right now that difference happens to be hidden; if you send unnamed vectors into such a reducer it'll fail at runtime. This at least promotes that contract to compile-time checking which seems like a good thing. Am I convincing? On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok this is a good con...
