On 2023-08-28 03:26 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> I don't feel strongly about this either way.  String-pad is definitely a
> precedent, but there is also the CL lexical syntax, which allows an
> optional integer literal between # and * and makes it an error to write
> #5*100100.  (The last bit is used as the padding bit.)

Another way to think about Shiro's point is: "should the result of
(bitvector-pad bit bvec k) always have length k?"

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