[Daniel, excuse me for the double post] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ala'a Mohammad <amal...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [pro] "fhash" To: Daniel Weinreb <d...@google.com>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Daniel Weinreb <d...@google.com> wrote: >... > I have recently been cleaning this up, one reason being that I'd like > to open source it. The function names used to be things like getfhash > and mapfhash. Now they are like fhash:get and fhash:map-elements and > ... > Here are pros and cons of changing it that I can see. > ... > Con: Common Lisp already uses the name "hash table", so it would be > easier for existing Common Lisp programmers to see the analogy. I can see this as a Con only if you will use the same API as hash-table. However, the fhash library uses different APIs (get, map-elements) instead of (gethash, maphash). This means the benefit of knowing/familiarity-with CL hash-table will not help/aid while using fhash (guessing the API), since I have to lookup (or learn) the new API wording. - Ala'a _______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro