Am Sa., 8. Aug. 2020 um 21:21 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:

> > The SRFI 43 procedure is certainly much more useful than the R7RS/SRFI
> > 133 procedure. On the other hand, the R7RS/SRFI 133 procedure does
> > seem to follow the general shape of the XXX-map procedures where XXX
> > is some type of collection (object).
>
> Indeed, SRFI 43 vector-map, with its two-argument mapped procedure, is
> indeed an odd case among the many "map" functions of Scheme.  While
> having access to the index is useful, the R7/SRFI 133 versions are
> more consistent.

On a second thought, the change from SRFI 43 to R7RS wasn't that
necessary for consistency: It really depends on how we view a (Scheme)
vector. We can either think of a vector as a list of values (which has
a random access O(1) getter and setter), or we can think of a vector
as a finite map, which maps an interval of natural numbers to Scheme
values.

SRFI 43's vector-map has adopted the second view, and it is likely the
better view. And with this view in mind, the "vector-map" of SRFI 43
is completely regular. See SRFI 125's hash-table-map for another
higher-order mapping procedure that is defined for another type of
finite map.

Ergo, we should have filed a ticket for R7RS.