On 2020-09-01 17:45 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Di., 1. Sept. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
> >
> > Also added for range->list for uniformity's sake, though probably less useful.
>
> Is there any situation or implementation of range->list imaginable
> where the result must not be modified because it would modify the
> range?
>
> If not, I'd suggest reverting back range->list to the more liberal
> specification because otherwise we just see needless list copies in
> user code.

Agreed.  We specifically do *not* want ranges to be represented by
lists; I think this was the original motivation for adding complexity
requirements to this SRFI.

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

"The difference between theory and practice is, uh, larger in
practice than in theory." --Olin Shivers