Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 21:27 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
<xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
>
> On 2020-09-05 12:15 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > Exactly the same procedures that make sense for vector literals make sense
> > for ranges.
>
> OK, I think I understand now.  So you'd like the specification to
> state something like "the range type may not be disjoint from the type
> of Scheme vectors, but it is an error to mutate a range"?  Or are there
> other specific changes?

Nothing more. Just allowing this freedom, which doesn't touch anything
else of the spec.

> During these discussions it can be hard to keep track of what
> concrete changes are being proposed.  I think we'll be able to resolve
> this quickly if we can stick to what we want to do with the current
> SRFI.

Agreed. :)

I have no strong opinion about this proposal in the sense that I
believe that it would be a mistake if ranges and vectors are forced to
be disjoint. But any restriction we impose now cannot be taken back
later (without sacrificing compatibility), so being a bit more liberal
makes sense to me (as, in particular, virtually no code or use case
that is already doable with the restricted version would be touched).

Marc