* reverse-vector->bitvector
* reverse-bitvector->vector/int
* reverse-bitvector->vector/bool
Added.
(3) Add reverse-bytevector->/<-bitvector conversions? (Nontrivial)
(ref: https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-178/msg/15035077/)
As Marc pointed out, these would have to be called /be and /le or the like. I'm inclined to pull them out altogether, since they are not really related to anything else, and put them somewhere else, perhaps named pack-bits/be, pack-bits/le, unpack-bits/be, and unpack-bits/le, and able to handle integers as well as bitvectors.
(4) Clarify argument order in bitvector folds.
(ref: https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-178/msg/15036897/)
Added: "The kons procedure is called with the states first and the new element
last, as in SRFIs 43, 133, and 160."
(5) Rename bitvector= to bitvector=?.
(ref: https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-178/msg/15023973/)
Done.
Probably closed par fatwa de mufti, but:
Well, not quite for that reason. Using -1 for failure from bitvector-first-bit is compatible with the integer equivalent first-set-bit as defined by SRFIs 33, 60, R6RS, and 151. I think that is determinative.
(R6RS calls this bitwise-first-bit-set, and none of them support finding the first *clear* bit.)