Re: first-last->queue and first-last->queue! John Cowan (03 Dec 2014 13:09 UTC)
Re: first-last->queue and first-last->queue! John Cowan 03 Dec 2014 13:09 UTC
Takashi Kato scripsit:
> * Aren't they a bit too much depending on the container implementation?*
> What should happen when the `front` and `back` are not in the same
> list? - If implementations need to check, then it'd take O(n).
They are meant to be fast and unsafe, and I'll modify the SRFI to say so.
> Some trivial things (not related to subject):- 'Rationale' and
> 'Implementation' sections have `â€` (corruption or only me?)-
> 'Copyright' has `Â` (again only me?) _/_/
The 8859-1 header was added downstream from me.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org
Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN in any language. --Ed Post