>>>>> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: >> Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Yes. C<unshift> is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel >>> embarrassed on introducing it. >>> >> >> C<unshift>'s only virtue, IMHO, is that it's clearly the inverse of >> C<shift>. But I think the spelling and aural relationship between >> C<push>, C<pop>, C<pull>, and C<put> is clear enough to negate that. >> >> But then, I'm a little biased. >> RA> Except that push and pull are logical opposites linguistically, but RA> not in standard CS parlance. could be very confusing. RA> There's a possibility of using C<enq> and C<deq> for enqueue/dequeue, RA> except that C<deq> == C<pop> in standard implementations. RA> So C<enq> and C<shift>? yeck. what about get/put for queue stuff? they don't conflict with push/pop/(un)shift so we can keep them. they would be synonyms for shift/push on arrays but do the right thing for queues and other unlimited things. and get/put are also an historical pair of computer terms that are well known (pl/i and others). and they are nice and short too so they make huffman feel good. :) so you could use get/put on arrays or queues but only them on queues. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding- Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
