Re: Position of 'proc' argument in for-each etc. John Cowan 12 Sep 2015 22:08 UTC

Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> SRFI-69 avoids the issue by calling it "walk" instead of "for-each."
> Can't we just break from the convention here and do what makes sense?

SRFI-125 supports both -for-each with the standard order and -walk with
the SRFI-69 order.

> Hash-table-fold would take 'hashtable, init, proc' like

SRFI-125 supports both orders.

> (Do note the over-arching theme of SRFI-125 trying to imitate SRFI-1
> with awkward results, or the even wider over-arching theme of forcing
> consistency where it doesn't necessarily make sense, like adding
> make-list, list-set!, etc. to R7RS-small...)

R4RS, R5RS, R6RS, R7RS-small, SRFI-1, SRFI-13, SRFI-43, SRFI-113, etc.
etc.  Consistency makes learning a lot easier.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and all other acyclic
graphs; you have a right to be here.  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath