szergling | 4 Jun 08:44 2009
Picon

curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

Hi Alexandrians,

I believe curry and rcurry are the wrong names for the functions
in Alexandria. See the following for example,

http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00000.html
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00015.html

What about papply or partial-apply? Or maybe p-apply? This way,
The reversed version might be called rp-apply. Otherwise
reverse-partial-apply?

I am aware that this is a common usage/mistake in CL, but
Alexandria doesn't have to perpetuate this error. An unfortunate
downside is breaking backwards compatibility. I'm not sure what
Alexandria's policy is regarding this...

Theam Yong Chew
szergling | 4 Jun 08:47 2009
Picon

curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

Hi Alexandrians,

I believe curry and rcurry are the wrong names for the current
functions in Alexandria. See the following for example,

http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00000.html
http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00015.html

What about papply or partial-apply? Or maybe p-apply? This way, The
reversed version might be called rp-apply. Otherwise
reverse-partial-apply?

I am aware that this is a common usage/mistake in CL, but Alexandria
doesn't have to perpetuate this error. An unfortunate downside is
breaking backwards compatibility. I'm not sure what Alexandria's
policy is regarding this...

I'm happy to send patches if this renaming is agreed upon.

Theam Yong Chew
Nikodemus Siivola | 4 Jun 11:26 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

2009/6/4 szergling <senatorzergling <at> gmail.com>:
> Hi Alexandrians,
>
> I believe curry and rcurry are the wrong names for the current
> functions in Alexandria. See the following for example,
>
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00000.html
> http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/mail-archive/msg00015.html
>
> What about papply or partial-apply? Or maybe p-apply? This way, The
> reversed version might be called rp-apply. Otherwise
> reverse-partial-apply?
>
> I am aware that this is a common usage/mistake in CL, but Alexandria
> doesn't have to perpetuate this error. An unfortunate downside is
> breaking backwards compatibility. I'm not sure what Alexandria's
> policy is regarding this...
>
> I'm happy to send patches if this renaming is agreed upon.

I'm not sure. I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not convinced either:
even if it wrong, the names are "culturally correct", if you will.
Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred
ones if we did the renaming.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus
szergling | 7 Jun 01:37 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Nikodemus
Siivola<nikodemus <at> random-state.net> wrote:
> 2009/6/4 szergling <senatorzergling <at> gmail.com>:
>> Hi Alexandrians,
>>
>> I believe curry and rcurry are the wrong names for the current

...

> I'm not sure. I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not convinced either:
> even if it wrong, the names are "culturally correct", if you will.

Yeah, I know, this is just a personal itch of mine. I believe
Alexandria is in a unique position to promote a naming
convention (and do the right thing too).

> Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred

Yes, I like these too. I've looked into the extent of the work required to
do the renaming, and it ended being quite straight-forward. The minor
exception being the documentation, since the "include" directory is
not in version control. See lines 119 & 120 in doc/alexandria.texinfo

 <at> include include/fun-alexandria-curry.texinfo
 <at> include include/fun-alexandria-rcurry.texinfo

Aside from that, I've attached darcs patches. (Where did the
"Ignore-this" comments come from?)

> ones if we did the renaming.
(Continue reading)

Attila Lendvai | 7 Jun 10:44 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

> Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred

when looking at the issue with a clean mind, without having read any
papers about currying (there are newborns every day!), the long
versions of the proposed names are much more intuitive.

just one more 0.02,

--

-- 
 attila
Luis Oliveira | 7 Jun 11:33 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

szergling <senatorzergling <at> gmail.com> writes:

> The minor exception being the documentation, since the "include"
> directory is not in version control. See lines 119 & 120 in
> doc/alexandria.texinfo

That directory is auto-generated from the docstrings. See doc/Makefile.

--

-- 
Luís Oliveira
http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/

_______________________________________________
alexandria-devel mailing list
alexandria-devel <at> common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/alexandria-devel
Tobias C. Rittweiler | 8 Jun 09:40 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus <at> random-state.net> writes:

> I'm not sure. I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not convinced either:
> even if it wrong, the names are "culturally correct", if you will.
> Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred
> ones if we did the renaming.

I find them too long. Long names can distract from the intent of the
actual code. They're supposed to merely combine domain-level logic, but
being long they make the impression they're more than that. 

  -T.
Michael Weber | 8 Jun 11:21 2009

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?


On Jun 8, 2009, at 09:40 , Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:

> Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus <at> random-state.net> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure. I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not convinced either:
>> even if it wrong, the names are "culturally correct", if you will.
>> Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred
>> ones if we did the renaming.
>
> I find them too long. Long names can distract from the intent of the
> actual code. They're supposed to merely combine domain-level logic,  
> but
> being long they make the impression they're more than that.

FWIW, I agree with Tobias' arguments.

I'd vote for PAPPLY (and probably by extension REVPAPPLY) if there is  
to be a name change.
Leslie P. Polzer | 8 Jun 11:12 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?


Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
> Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus <at> random-state.net> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure. I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not convinced either:
>> even if it wrong, the names are "culturally correct", if you will.
>> Names partial-apply and partial-reverse-apply would be my preferred
>> ones if we did the renaming.
>
> I find them too long. Long names can distract from the intent of the
> actual code. They're supposed to merely combine domain-level logic, but
> being long they make the impression they're more than that.

I second this.
Attila Lendvai | 8 Jun 12:38 2009
Picon

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

> I find them too long. Long names can distract from the intent of the
> actual code. They're supposed to merely combine domain-level logic, but
> being long they make the impression they're more than that.

if i see PAPPLY (or any other abbreviated name for that matter), my
brain first maps it to PARTIAL-APPLY and then to the meaning itself.

IMHO, abbreviation is bad because it can be done in a million ways and
it only introduces an extra level of indirection which is an
(admittedly small) obstacle against understanding.

of course the picture is different for names that are used in every second line.

it might be only me, though. and i don't have strong feelings because
names are inherently subjective and our tools should handle the
personal preferences. CL + slime does not provide much in this regard,
but packages and symbol aliases work.

--

-- 
 attila

Gmane