[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed new SRFI for immutable lists
- To: Michael Montague <mikemon@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed new SRFI for immutable lists
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:58:50 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CALEAhfAsAGEYFtObdGrqOmrt=rpFU-nZN+XR30jpDkiau1gNVQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20140901025019.GF5424@mercury.ccil.org> <CALEAhfAsAGEYFtObdGrqOmrt=rpFU-nZN+XR30jpDkiau1gNVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Michael Montague scripsit:
> I did not see where the specification said anything about:
> (pair? (ipair 'a 'b)) ==> ???
> (ipair? (cons 'a 'b)) ==> ???
You're right, it doesn't and that was an oversight. As noted in the new
Rationale, pairs and ipairs have to be disjoint. There are now notes
to that effect under `ipair` and `ipair?`.
> The case insensitive versions of the char and string comparison
> procedures have a -ci suffix. Did you consider using a -i or -im suffix?
I didn't think about a suffix, but it seems to me that in this
case a shorter prefix is better than a longer one. These are
some of the most commonly used identifiers in Scheme, and
it pays to keep them short. In addition, Kevin Wortman is
developing an API and implementation of immutable (and truly
persistent) deques, sets, and maps, which also use the i- prefix.
for an early draft.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
"Your honour puts yourself to much trouble correcting my English and
doubtless the final letter will be much better literature; but it will
go from me Mukherji to him Bannerji, and he Bannerji will understand it a
great deal better as I Mukherji write it than as your honour corrects it."
--19th-century Indian civil servant to his British superior
Scheme-reports mailing list