[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI-43: some minor comments
On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 04:47 AM, Sven Hartrumpf wrote:
Thanks for this SRFI. After reading SRFI-1 one would expect this SRFI
:-) It's good to see that somebody is filling this gap.
"3. Procedure Index":
The markup you introduce should also be used in section 4.
I don't quite see what you mean...could you be a little more specific?
"end: .. This indicates the index at which traversal of a vector ends."
Maybe this is ambiguous (including or excluding end; maybe "before" is
clearer. (Sorry, I am not a native as you can read here :-)
"so forth If": add a period
"(vector=eq?)": delete one of the two
vector-concatenate: "bork" ?
I couldn't think of a better term at the time. I'll reword it to
some Schemes don't let you pass more than some fixed number of
arguments, due to
a small stack or something.
vector-map-left etc.: vector-map-in-order (others: ...
are more in line with SRFI-1?
The VECTOR-MAP-X[!] procedures I intended to let people discuss on the
list. I didn't particularly like having MAP, MAP-IN-ORDER ('in order'
I find a
little ambiguous, too ('right to left' is in a specific order, but it's
specific order that MAP-IN-ORDER uses), which is why I chose
and MAP!, so I changed it around a bit. I do agree that it isn't very
with SRFI 1, and I also intend to cut some of the less necessary ones
hearing what other people have to say.
vector-any: "applied each" add "to" in between?
Whoops a third time.
"Association Vectors": "they also occupy": why "also"?
Do you think the sentence should be rephrased as
'Avectors are constant size, but they occupy LENGTH*2 cells); alists
since it is something of a limitation that avectors are constant size?
Or should I rephrase it even differently and put the 'limitation' after
avector-change[!]: why are the parameter key and value separated by
I dunno. What order do you think they should be in?
Suggestion: avector-update[!]: like avector-change but instead of
a unary function for updating is supplied, e.g. (lambda (old-value) (+
These functions are important for the efficient implementation of some
Ah, good idea.
Its parameters will be the similar to AVECTOR-CHANGE[!]'s (KEY then
F), only until someone decides on what the order ought to be.
Sven Hartrumpf e-mail: Sven.Hartrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Computer Science VII phone: +49 2331 987 4553
University of Hagen fax: +49 2331 987 392
58084 Hagen - Germany http://pi7.fernuni-hagen.de/hartrumpf
PS: Could you send directly to the SRFI 43 mailing list, instead of
directly to me?