Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> > Hmm, but that's not `map` in the domain of hash tables.  I'll think
> > about it.
>
> It indeed doesn't conform to that abstract ideal but I strongly suspect
> it makes the language more practical for actual use.  I'm not sure if it
> should be added at all though.  Clear-copy & for-each goes a long way.

You're right.  I've flushed -map and renamed -map-values to -map.

> >> - hash-table-filter/remove!
> I settled with hashtable-prune! after all.  I find it nice enough.

How about -preserve! (for -filter!) and -discard! (for -remove!)?
I haven't done this yet.

> >> - Hash tables as functions

Still thinking about this.

> I'll write that [set] library myself then, once we settle on SRFI-126 or an
> SRFI-114-less SRFI-125. :-)

What is it you have against SRFI-114?  If you don't like all the
procedures, it could be partitioned into two libraries.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income.
                --Lord Macnaghten (1901)