This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 101 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 101 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Alexey Radul wrote:
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.
(On a system in which all lists were random-access, both would be identities, right?)
OK, I'm not terribly attached to `list->list' and I'm willing to do whatever seems to be the consensus here.
This proposal seems different than (my interpretation of) Campbell's. The choice I see is between functions for:
* generic -> specific (Radul) * specific -> specific (Campbell) So let me ask, which do people prefer?I appreciate the comments on generic operations, but as you noted, this is beyond the scope of this SRFI.
David