Alexey Radul wrote:
> I agree with Taylor that the name list->list is confusing.  The
> proposed specification of that function also strikes me as very poor,
> for the reason that you have to know what you are putting in to know
> what you are going to get out.  I would much rather see a function
> named list->random-access-list (and another named list->standard-list
> or list->linear-list) that accepts any kind of list and produces one
> of the desired type.  That name already suggests that the function may
> act as the identity operation on some inputs; in a system where all
> lists were random-access, list->random-access-list would very well
> always be the identity function.

(On a system in which all lists were random-access, both would be
identities, right?)

OK, I'm not terribly attached to `list->list' and I'm willing to do
whatever seems to be the consensus here.

This proposal seems different than (my interpretation of) Campbell's.
The choice I see is between functions for:

    * generic -> specific (Radul)
    * specific -> specific (Campbell)

So let me ask, which do people prefer?

I appreciate the comments on generic operations, but as you noted, this
is beyond the scope of this SRFI.

David