Re: Range procedures Per Bothner 25 Jan 2016 00:25 UTC

On 01/24/2016 01:35 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> I'm particularly interested in how people feel about the range-*
> procedures in the latest draft.  I realized that there should be a
> range-unfold-right as well, and I'm adding it to the next draft.

Personally, I'd rather migrate to using abstract sequences (as in
Common Lisp), and have ranges be a kind of sequence.  Thus instead of

   (range-for-each f start end)

one would write:

   (for-each f (range start end))

IMO Scheme needs interfaces ...  Without them, we get this huge list
of SRFIs for different sequence-like types, and thus potentially a
R7RS-large with a huge number of procedures.  That way lies madness.
	--Per Bothner