Re: SRFI 43 vs. R7RS-small Taylor R Campbell 28 Oct 2015 16:49 UTC

   Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:15:59 -0400
   From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org>

   Taylor R Campbell scripsit:

   >    [1) live with the conflict]
   >
   > 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.

Not really.  SRFI 43 is just one library that might one might want to
use.  The same kind of conflict might well occur in Mesa or something
else totally unrelated if it were originally built against an earlier
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.  [...]
   >
   > Reasonable.

   I wish you would express a preference as between these two.

If you really want to go this route, you could make a new SRFI adding
/index variants to everything and naming the non-index variants.

But I think effort is better spent using foof-loop.