On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Ken Dickey wrote:

>> Procedure: hash-table-for-each hash-table proc
>
> Tradtionally, one uses a table as the 1st parameter to functions
> manipulating
> tables.
>
> But tradtionally, for-each takes a proc and a collection
>  (for-each proc list ...).
>
> I would recommend using another name, perhaps
>   table-walk table proc  ;; or hash-table-walk
> or
>   hash-table-for-each proc table
>
> As the intent is clearly to treat the table as a collection.
>
> Please don't confuse me on parameter order.  I get confused easily
> enough on
> my own.  8^)
>
> Cheers,
> -KenD

I agree.  The procedure parameter should come first and
be consistent with for-each.  I feel this is more consistent,
and also it allows future extensions of the interface to
multiple tables, i.e.

     (hash-table-for-each proc table1 table2...)

The semantics could be to apply proc for each key that is
contained in all tables (error or not if some key does not exist
in all tables), or to apply proc for each key that appears in
table1 and it is an error if a key in table1 does not exist
in the other tables.  I'm not suggesting that multiple tables
be supported by SRFI-69, but please make the interface extensible
for allowing this in the future (or as an implementation specific
extension).

Marc