Am Di., 1. Sept. 2020 um 22:52 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
>
> On 2020-09-01 21:28 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > Am Di., 1. Sept. 2020 um 21:21 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
> > <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
> > >
> > > I wonder if this
> > > means that the only real use of vector->range will be as a sort of
> > > shorthand for constructing a discrete range, by passing literal
> > > vectors.  If so, perhaps it would be better to *remove* the
> > > restriction on vector->range (i.e.  copy the vector argument), and
> > > provide a discrete range constructor (conventionally, this would be
> > > called `range'):
> >
> > I think there are many more uses. Like in
> >
> > (vector->range (vector-unfold <some-complicated-proc> n))
>
> Yes, on second thought, we certainly wouldn't want it to copy there.
> So I withdraw the suggestion.  I still think the restriction on
> vector->range is a bit error-prone.

Rename it to

ivector->range

?