I don't recall, and it wasn't discussed explicitly, but I'm not sure we missed it.

The original proposal was: http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/CompleteSequenceCowan

which makes it clear the goal is internal consistency, i.e. map and vector-map

should be interchangeable if you swap out the underlying data types.

In general "map" is a concept applied to values, and is most readable that

way.  I prefer (vector-map f vec) to (vector-map (lambda (x i) (f x)) vec).

Passing the index is more fundamental, but I expect to be used relatively

rarely.  We can provide such a procedure, but it really begs for a different

name, and I'd be inclined to merge it with -fold.  I also agree with Taylor

that as the complexity increases (you're referring to indexes and/or writing

large nested lambdas) you're better off with loop syntax.  Simple -map or

-fold with existing procedures are nicer than loops though.  Some of the

utilities, like vector-binary-search, are also important and not handled by

loop syntax.

I'm fine with the conflict, unless you want this to be an "official" R7RS-large

library, e.g. as (scheme vector), in which case I prefer #5: fork SRFI 43

removing all uses of the index, and rename the existing SRFI 43

vector-fold to something like vector-tabulate.  Otherwise #4, fork maximally,

renaming in favor of consistency with SRFI 1 and R7RS.

-- 

Alex