This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 43 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 43 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: TB> "Michael Burschik" <Burschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Probably, I'm just too conservative. Anyway, I retract any objections >> against defining the predicates vector-empty? and vector-nonempty?. TB> My reason for wanting those functions is not because I imagine gobs of TB> code that uses empty vectors. Maybe a little, but you are quite right TB> that it's rare. TB> Rather, I think as much as possible the vector functions and the list TB> functions should be the same set and have the same names, except where TB> it just doesn't make any sense at all. Except SRFI 1 might be the wrong precedent here. I intend to post a more elaborate message on this subject, but I think that the set of vector procedures useful in practice is a small subset of the current SRFI 43 draft, and the additional ones constitute a considerable conceptual overhead when trying to find a particular one. (Depending on the Scheme system, they might also constitute considerable memory overhead.) I'm saying that we should have them, but I'd love the more esoteric ones to be in a separate SRFI. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla