Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from December 2004
Re: pull & put
From:
Uri Guttman
Date:
December 5, 2004 08:42
Subject:
Re: pull & put
Message ID:
x7vfbgitnl.fsf@mail.sysarch.com
>>>>> "RA" == Rod Adams <rod@rodadams.net> writes:
RA> Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>> Smylers <smylers@stripey.com> 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 ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org