jerry gay wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Other languages have adopted the Perl shortname of "hash" as well,
including Ruby and this odd little creature known as "Parrot". Perhaps
we should rename Parrot's "Hash" class to "AssociativePMCArray"? 1/2 ;-)
I wouldn't mind. I mean, various languages will certainly have a type
called "Hash", but that doesn't mean the core Parrot type needs to be.
And really, it would fit in better with our general PMC naming scheme,
and might open up the door for "AssociativeStringArray",
"AssociativeIntegerArray", and "AssociativeBooleanArray".
we should call gather and take by their proper names where they're
defined. "aggregating coroutine" is more precise and descriptive than
is "gather", however "gather" is much easier to say in polite company,
and is therefore a better name to use at the language level.
By this reasoning, we should also change the other exceptions:
.CONTROL_RETURN => .CONTROL_SUB_RETURN (or .CONTROL_SUB_EXIT)
.CONTROL_BREAK => .CONTROL_LOOP_EXIT
.CONTROL_CONTINUE => .CONTROL_LOOP_NEXT
and perhaps add .CONTROL_LOOP_REPEAT there as well. Note that I'm not at
all opposed to this -- if we're going to do it for one, we really
ought to do it for all.
agreed. precision is of little benefit unless it's consistent across
related functionality.
Hmmmm... yeah, I like that idea. Especially since 'break' and 'continue'
mean different things in different languages and different contexts
(like 'break' and 'continue' in gdb, for example).
Allison
