On 2021-06-09 08:13 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> (Speaking of this: wouldn't it make
> sense to restrict the type to fixnums as it is all about an efficient
> implementation? Shouldn't this be strongly considered? In this case,
> fxmapping would indeed be the best name.)

The SRFI allows this restriction, but also allows implementations to
support bignum keys (see the "Exact Integers" section).  I'd rather
not restrict it unnecessarily.

> Unless we really want integer indices outside the fixnum range, I would
> suggest "int-mapping" or "integer-mapping" (and "int-set" or "integer-set"
> for SRFI 217).

None of the options seem particularly beautiful, but I'm leaning
toward "int-mapping".  We do have "bytevectors" and "bitvectors",
though, so I wonder if "intmapping" is more consistent with that
naming pattern.

CC'd to John, since SRFI 217's naming has the same issue.

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

"In the presence of the unknown all have an equal right to
think." --Robert G. Ingersoll, "Individuality"