[Daniel, excuse me for the double post]
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ala'a Mohammad amalawi@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [pro] "fhash" To: Daniel Weinreb dlw@google.com
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Daniel Weinreb dlw@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