Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@evdev.ath.cx> writes:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Michael Burschik wrote:
> I like the idea of VECTOR-SPLIT-ON instead of VECTOR-SPAN.  Indeed,
> VECTOR-SPAN is -very- non-intuitive.  Should only a couple more
> people agree with us, then I'll change VECTOR-SPAN to
> VECTOR-SPLIT-ON.

I'm *passionately* ambivalent about this. I believe that the
span/break terminology stems from the C library functions strbrk()
and strspan(). They *are* non-intuitive until you've gotten them
wedged in your head. OTOH, I'm no great fan of multiple names for
similiar semantic structures, so consistency w/SRFI-1 naming is
important to me.

In summary I'm going to bitch about it either way, but I think I will
be less annoyed by sticking with span/break terminology. YMMV.

> > I also noticed that several functions are available in two very similar
> > versions: one that takes a single vector and optional start/end
> > arguments, and one that takes several vector arguments. A single,
> > more general function might be more desirable

Not to this chicken.

> have a 'VECTOR-FOO,' which took a vector, ...
> and a 'VECTORS-FOO,' which took any number of vectors

I can live with that. Yep. But you need to keep the simple interfaces
around, they will surely get the most use. I think it is very easy to
get drawn into an overkill mode with this kind of specification...

FWIW, is the document at srfi.schemers.org up to date?

david rush
--
Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing.
	-- Wernher von Braun