Re: SRFI 43 vs. R7RS-small John Cowan 28 Oct 2015 16:15 UTC
Taylor R Campbell scripsit: > I doubt whether SRFI 43 matters to anyone. One is better served all > around by foof-loop than by SRFI 43. One may be, but another may not. In any case it is not either/or: the two versions of foof-loop have both been proposed for a later color edition of R7RS-large along with the other syntactic structures. > Preferred. This is a problem that one may have to deal with in any > sufficiently large and diverse code base. But it is embarrassing for what purports to be a standard. > 2) Fork SRFI-43 minimally. Rename the procedures to `vector-map/index` > and `vector-for-each/index` or the like (something better, preferably). > This resolves the conflict, but is fairly unmotivated in SRFI 43 terms. > > Reasonable. > > 3) Fork SRFI-43, doubling up on all procedures with procedure > arguments. This would mean introducing two forms of the seven such > procedures, `vector-fold`, `vector-fold-right`, `vector-reduce`, > `vector-reduce-right`, `vector-map`, `vector-map!`, and `vector-for-each`: > one that accepts an index (and has a name ending in `/index`) and another > that does not (re-exporting the names `vector-map` and `vector-for-each` > in an R7RS context). This is a full solution, but adds more names and > complexities. > > Reasonable. I wish you would express a preference as between these two. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U." --K.X.U.