I agree with Taylor that the name list->list is confusing. The
proposed specification of that function also strikes me as very poor,
for the reason that you have to know what you are putting in to know
what you are going to get out. I would much rather see a function
named list->random-access-list (and another named list->standard-list
or list->linear-list) that accepts any kind of list and produces one
of the desired type. That name already suggests that the function may
act as the identity operation on some inputs; in a system where all
lists were random-access, list->random-access-list would very well
always be the identity function.