[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:45:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
() Mark H Weaver <address@hidden>
() Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:04:13 -0400
However, I find the term 'set' misleading, since no mutation is
taking place. Maybe 'update'? I dunno, I don't have strong
feelings on this.
How about ‘overlay’ (or ‘over-set’ or ‘mask’) or ‘interpose’ or
‘insinuate’ or ‘twiddle’ or ‘frob’ or ‘actually’ or ‘imho’ or some
combination of the previous and prefix ‘w/’ (e.g., ‘w/ho’)?
- Functional record "setters", a different approach, Mark H Weaver, 2012/04/11
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Mark H Weaver, 2012/04/11
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/04/11
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Mark H Weaver, 2012/04/12
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <=
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/04/12
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Mark H Weaver, 2012/04/12
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/04/13
- Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach, Mark H Weaver, 2012/04/13