Final draft of SRFI 117 is available John Cowan (26 Aug 2015 02:57 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Arthur A. Gleckler (26 Aug 2015 03:24 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Takashi Kato (27 Aug 2015 07:52 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available John Cowan (28 Aug 2015 14:57 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Arthur A. Gleckler (28 Aug 2015 15:11 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available John Cowan (06 Sep 2015 22:02 UTC)
Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Arthur A. Gleckler (07 Sep 2015 04:21 UTC)

Re: Final draft of SRFI 117 is available Takashi Kato 27 Aug 2015 07:52 UTC

I think `list-queue-unfold-right` missing optional argument [queue].

Also I'm implementing the optional argument for `list-queue-unfold`
and `list-queue-unfold-right` and I want a clarification. Suppose
there are queues `ql0` and `ql1` whose elements are `(a b c d e)`.
Then apply it to the procedures like this:

;; *1
(list-queue-unfold
  (lambda (x) (> x 5))
  (lambda (x) (* x 10))
  (lambda (x) (+ x 1))
  0 ql0)

and

;; *2
(list-queue-unfold-right
  (lambda (x) (> x 5))
  (lambda (x) (* x 10))
  (lambda (x) (+ x 1))
  0 ql1)

Should case *1 return the queue `ql0` which contains
`(a b c d e 10 20 30 40 50)` unlike SRFI-1 `unfold`?

Should case *2 return the queue `ql1` which contains
`(50 40 30 20 10 a b c d e)`?

Cheers,

_/_/

Takashi Kato

Email: xxxxxx@ymail.com