In accordance with Will Clinger's posting, Alexey Radul and I are raising
this issue for the WG1 to resolve after the plebiscite is complete.
I document it now so that WG1 members can discuss it now.

Alexey writes:

> - Do map and friends [pp.50-51] always return newly allocated results?
>   For example, it's not too hard to write an otherwise-valid
>   definition of map where
>     (let ((one '(1 6 1 8 0 3))
>           (two '(1 4 1 4 2 1)))
>       (eqv? one (map (lambda (x y) x) one two)))
>      ==> #t
>   and one might even want that, to save space.  There are of course
>   more complicated examples where the result of a map could share list
>   structure with the tail of one of its inputs, as long as the
>   procedure being mapped returned those elements unchanged.

Currently, the draft just says "returns a list", "returns a string", and
"returns a vector", without saying "newly allocated".  I believe nothing
needs to be added.  Does any WG1 member disagree?  Does any member of
the Scheme community disagree?  Silence gives consent.

--
He played King Lear as though           John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
someone had played the ace.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eugene Field

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg1" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-wg1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.