[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AW: AW: AW: Several comments

>>>>> "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

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