On 2020-08-17 10:03 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 1:44 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
> xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
> > bitvector-unfold does not have a /bool or /int suffix in John's draft.
>
> It doesn't actually need one: proc can be required to accept a bit.

If this were why the unfolds lacked /bool and /int flavors, we could
drop them with -map and -fold, as well.  But this is not the reason.
The procedure argument of bitvector-unfold(-right) is only applied
to index and seed values; the latter can be anything.  The procedure
is require to return a bit as its first value.  Since the bit value
can be easily unwrapped, it's unnecessary (and something of an
abstraction leak) to have two versions.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"Optimization hinders evolution." --Alan J. Perlis