Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>    Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:20 -0400
>    From: David Van Horn <xxxxxx@cs.brandeis.edu>
>
>    I could add conversion functions if that seems useful (they are trivial
>    to define in terms of the folds given).  In a system that really
>    embraces the random-access pair type as fundamental, these would just be
>    identities.
>
> I think this would be good: otherwise programs would not be able to
> portably exploit systems that embrace random-access lists.

In a system that uses random-access lists everywhere, you would not need
conversions.  In a system that doesn't, these are easy to portably
define.  So now I'm not sure what your concern is.

David