On 2020-08-29 19:40 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> As long as infinite sequences are not mentioned in this SRFI, it
> should be an error. However, this can happen not only when (zero?
> step) but also with a purely negative or positive step due to rounding
> errors (we cannot assume any particular, e.g. the IEEE,
> representation).
>
> Therefore, I would write:
>
> "It is an error if the step is numerically zero or if there is no such
> n fulfilling [*]." (Where [*] points to the wording above.)

Agreed.  Added, with slight rephrasing.

> If we drop infinite sequences, so any step value near zero, this is
> less of a concern.

I believe (and John, via IRC, concurs) that infinite ranges should be
excluded from this SRFI.

I've also added vector->range.

It was also suggested to rename "range-end" to "range-last".  I'm not
sure what John's opinion on that is, and would like to wait for him
before doing anything with it.  I like "range-last" a little more,
although the symmetry with "range-start" is lost.

Is there anything else left?

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

"Scientific theories are judged by the coherence they lend to our
natural experience and the simplicity with which they do so.
The grand principle of the heavens balances on the razor's edge
of truth." --Commissioner Pravin Lal (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri)