[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Several comments
Finally getting a bit of breathing space, so I am...
"Michael Burschik" <Burschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 4.5 Iterators
> If vector-unfold is the fundamental vector constructor, it should be
> defined in 4.1 and not 4.5. Moreover, vector-unfold is hardly a
> suitable name for a constructor. As the function is similar to "do"
> returning a vector, the syntax might be changed to reflect this
> similarity. On the other hand, this would break the similarity to
So what? My issue with vector-unfold is that the unfold combinator
isn't terribly efficient for fixed-length collections (and no, I don't
particularly like the SRFI-13 string-unfold, either).
And anyway, having lived with SRFI-1 unfold for a couple of years now,
I have just about completely abandoned it in favor of named let; which
is simpler to code with and more flexible anyway...
> Given a not too inefficient implementation of vector-reverse, which
> should be possible, the whole issue of left/right iteration would seem
> rather pointless.
Actually for vectors having the different left/right iterators is more
important because a reverse is entirely unnecessary. It's just a
decrementing integer loop instaed of an incrementing one. There's a big
efficiency gain here.
Einstein said that genius abhors consensus because when consensus is
reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.
-- the Silicon Valley Tarot