(Previous discussion continued)
Re: Why vectors? Derick Eddington 11 Aug 2008 21:58 UTC

Re: Why vectors? Derick Eddington 11 Aug 2008 21:58 UTC

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 08:53 -0400, Physics wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Derick Eddington wrote:
>
> > interoperating with the R6RS records procedures that deal in vectors
> > without having to convert list<->vector is not a good enough reason
> > compared to the benefit of using lists with one's primary record system
> > of use,
>
> What is the benefit of using lists?

The benefit of having the field specifiers of make-rtd, rtd-constructor,
rtd-field-names, and rtd-all-field-names be lists is: lists fit with all
the sequence-related things, both in standard Scheme and in others'
libraries, which use lists and not vectors.  E.g., memq for looking for
a field name, filter, append, reverse, etc.

Unless there's a compelling reason to use vectors, why not use Scheme's
natural sequence type: the list?

--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------