>>>>> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes:

TB> "Michael Burschik" <xxxxxx@lotto-berlin.de> writes:

>> Probably, I'm just too conservative. Anyway, I retract any objections
>> against defining the predicates vector-empty? and vector-nonempty?.

TB> My reason for wanting those functions is not because I imagine gobs of
TB> code that uses empty vectors.  Maybe a little, but you are quite right
TB> that it's rare.

TB> Rather, I think as much as possible the vector functions and the list
TB> functions should be the same set and have the same names, except where
TB> it just doesn't make any sense at all.

Except SRFI 1 might be the wrong precedent here.  I intend to post a
more elaborate message on this subject, but I think that the set of
vector procedures useful in practice is a small subset of the current
SRFI 43 draft, and the additional ones constitute a considerable
conceptual overhead when trying to find a particular one.  (Depending
on the Scheme system, they might also constitute considerable memory
overhead.)

I'm saying that we should have them, but I'd love the more esoteric
ones to be in a separate SRFI.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla