VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Michael Sperber
(15 Dec 2003 17:03 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX Taylor Campbell (15 Dec 2003 22:00 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Michael Sperber
(16 Dec 2003 08:06 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Taylor Campbell
(17 Dec 2003 03:54 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Sven.Hartrumpf@xxxxxx
(17 Dec 2003 08:56 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Michael Sperber
(17 Dec 2003 18:17 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX
Taylor Campbell
(17 Dec 2003 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: VECTOR-MAP/INDEX Taylor Campbell 15 Dec 2003 22:00 UTC
On Dec 15, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Michael Sperber wrote: > VECTOR-MAP/INDEX is underspecified: it doesn't really say where in the > argument sequence the index appears. The reference implementation > says it's the last position. Let me suggest it should be the first: > all variable-arg Scheme library procedures I know assign special > meanings to argument positions from the start, not the end. Yes, I noticed this...and I mentioned it on the list a few emails ago. I suggested that it come first, too, and asked whether or not this change was OK with them; since you're the only person to have said _anything_ on this list since my last email one and a half months ago, I think the change _is_ OK. > -- > Cheers =8-} Mike > Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla > > PS: While the draft period is somewhat overextended on this, I only > just now started some more extensive hacking using vectors which > prompted me to have a closer look at the SRFI 43 draft. Too bad you hadn't done this extensive vector hacking back when the concept of a draft period still occurred to some of us...well, do you have opinions on the past few issues that I've brought up, namely the things regarding VECTOR-COPY!, the insertion & deletion routines, and the issue regarding start+end versus N vector arguments? > Let me say that the stuff there is very useful, even in the face of > the nebulous hope for grand unified collection ... something. Good > work, Taylor! Thanks!